# Quarantine Suggestions and discussion



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Worthy of a separate thread, and for now, a sticky IMO



> Ranavirus, and chytrid can be bad for a collection.. but they are bad for a collection if you don't use proper quarantine, and don't test. The same thing can be said for Rhabdiform lungworms.. or even hookworms. Both are heavily infections, can persist in the enclosure, and be transferred between enclosures and kill frogs...
> 
> Use the following guidelines for quarantine
> 
> ...


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

some comments

I think Ed's suggestions are sound, but most would find it hard if not impossible to abide by them all, all the time.

I test my frogs. That said, I think we all need to realize that pathogens can be missed with testing. Generally the hassle and cost prevents the hobbyist from testing serially as should be done by best practice standards.

I think it is fair to say 'most' larger scale breeders don't test, or test only sporadically. It is a large production to test a collection [try it and see], and in the past perhaps we were kidding ourselves with a 'false' sense of security from negative 'Collection Testing'. [Remember TWI's survey?]

It is true, that only recently has any of us tested for these sorts of things. We rarely had these conversations 5 years ago, and certainly it was harder [not impossible] to test then.

Imported animals come into the hobby regularly, from all directions. 99.9% of them are not tested. Everyone needs to be aware of this, but I don't think most are.

We as consumers also need to take responsibility for our own habits and husbandry. If someone gets a + test, I think they owe it to themselves and the source of the animals to consider all possibilities. Including that they contaminated the animals themselves, especially if the can't claim to follow QT recommendations like Ed's and TWI. It is likely a fair assumption that 95% of froggers don't.

*We should decide, what the community wants as the 'Standard'? in 2013*
- Is it that all sold/re-homed animals come with a certificate/copy of Neg testing results? What about shows? 
- Is it that we take co-responsibility for halting the spread of pathogens, both as buyers and sellers?
- Is it that we desire to 'out' all those with + tests? b/c I think that list would grow fast if that became the case, and be deleterious to the hobby. 
- What are our 'protocols' for treating, containing said pathogens? Even that isnt fully agreed upon in 2013. [I have 2 different treatment regimens with 2 different drugs, and there are others. Most hobbyist polled wouldnt be able to identify the drugs/doses/protocols I dont think]

I welcome more discussion. Civil discussion, about the topic of QT and pathogens. 

*Keep personal cases, names, and specific gripes off this Sticky please*.

Thanks


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I think it should be co-responsibility; both the buyer and the seller should be proactive about testing. 

If it is just buyers, then that includes sellers too, doesn't it? A seller still has to buy frogs to breed and sell more frogs. As for their established groups, what's wrong with taking group samples? The testing is not very expensive and would be paid for with the sale of one run of the mill type froglet.

eta: If a seller wanted to take on the responsibility, I think that seller would be much sought after. I imagine many, many people would be willing to pay a little more for froglets from a tested group. That would reimburse the seller for the tests and likely beyond.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I should note, that is the ideal quarantine methedology. The more of them a person can adopt and use on a regular basis the more safe their collection and the local enviroment becomes. 

Too often people people just do what is convient as opposed what is the best for thier collection. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## JasonE (Feb 7, 2011)

Ultimately it comes down to the purchaser. Someone can tell you they quarantine and test all day. That doesn't mean they did. We're responsible for our own collections. I agree with frogface. I'm going to seek out and pay more to someone trustworthy who does test, but its still on me to quarantine and test those frogs.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

The idea of sending swabs of someones 'purchased' animals has been a thought for some time now.

It would add potentially 30-50$ per order, I am guessing.

Generally now, a seller most of the time covers the cost of shipping box, PCMs, gels, heat packs, shipping containers, time etc as 'part of the retail price'.

I am not sure the same could be offered though on PCR testing, as the market is so tight as of 2013, that I think costs like that would need to be passed onto the buyer.? Not sure how to handle it honestly.

So, what does the community think? about having animals tested prior to shipping?
1. Is that reassurance enough? insurance enough?
2. Is the cost an issue to the consumer?
3. Does the time delay bother the consumer? [probably would mean testing this week, and shipping the next]

I'd love to know how you would feel if that option was offered to you?

I personally would pay it if/when I was buying. Why? b/c I am going to pay it anyway, when I get them here and into QT, so I'd rather know ahead that they at least tested neg a week b.f receiving.

Would that satisfy me, to the degree that I wouldnt QT further, test again?? I am not sure. Guess it would depend on the source, but at this point in my career as a frogger I only receive frogs from a very small pool of sources anyways.

Food for thought.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Shawn.

The problem is that these only catch the disease if it has progressed enough that there are DNA particles on the exterior of the frog. So someone could test a week before you get the frogs and you could still get infected frogs. Getting pretested frogs is something of a panacea as it only tells you at the moment of testing. 

For maximal security of a collection, quarantine should be 30 days or at least two clear sequential fecals with the swabbing being done the last week-ten days of quarantine. This prevents a person from getting a frog in the early stages of infection before it becomes detectable. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## pafrogguy (May 8, 2013)

Also what is not to say the seller could be unscrupulous about the test he/she was sharing with you? I think it would be great if we could all offer test results with all the animals we sell, but agree the cost would hinder people from buying I think. I mean folks are selling frogs for $20 nowadays, and you double that or better after the test. Sure folks may say they are for it now, but when it comes time to hand over the money to do so.... well I honestly think it would be a different story.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

^ Ed

I know you are right, and I struggle with still *how to implement a plan* that the community can live with.

If we leave it up to the 'customer', then we can't rightfully blame the breeder/sender 30 days after the customer has owned the animals, can we? 

Which is why I would not advocate 'outing' in the recent threads on DB.

If we pre-test, at least +'s would be recognized by the senders, maybe they 'keep it to themselves' but at least they know, and will more likely than not, take action themselves. 

If a pre-test is negative, I have to admit, I'll likely still QT and retest if I am the buyer, but I would feel better about the knowledge. 

Generally I don't treat, or test early on when I receive animals. Mainly because I've killed many WC/FR animals by the added stress of QT + handling + meds/treatment .... I think. So I now keep new arrivals settled in QT, moss/water container/leaf litter/banana chunk and all niceties....and then test many weeks later [usually > 4, if not 8]. The old papertowel/ sterile container QT was never successful, for me.

So, what would you do?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

My recommendation is the same as with fecals, test at least once a year.. Several frogs from the exact same enclosure can be swabbed with the same swab to reduce costs. 

That is problem with the whole testing thing before shipping.. you can get negative fecal results but still have an infected frog and you can get negative PCR results and still have an infected frog. Kris is lucky since her tests and isolation methods pretty much rule out anything an infection after arrival but how many people can say the same thing? We both know that it isn't uncommon for people to get the frogs and install them into thier permanent enclosure in thier frog room in the same day... The issue isn't going to really be dealt with until the hobby embraces quarantine and ideally testing. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

A further point to toss into the mix. Inside the hobby, there is a status for getting the best deal on an item be it a frog, a tank or a plant. As a result, there is a wide amount of trading/sales of plant materials that are frog frog enclosures... the willingness to pick up that FR/WC frog since it's cheaper, the purchase of frogs frogs from large whole sellers/retailers. 
All of these are behaviors that place the collections at risk for a pathogen being introduced. 
I have to admit that I'm pretty skeptical most hobbyists will pay the additional costs of pre-testing...

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

I am skeptical as well. 

We may just have to test it and see?

It is all too often to see pictures of 'look at what I just got in the mail! ' excitement , and photos of the frogs jumping around a beautifully constructed viv.

I still think pre-testing 'might' work. It would add some cost, some delay in instant gratification, but if it becomes more commonly done, wouldnt it mean more people are testing? more people paying closer attention to avoiding the bug? even if we still QT, and re-test a month later. 

Someone also mentioned 'batch testing'. Ive been told by the lab that you shouldnt swab more then 4 frogs in a batch. So, for most though that is a 'typical' frog purchase. One test for the group, unless they wanted individual tests run on each frog?


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

> Someone also mentioned 'batch testing'. Ive been told by the lab that you shouldnt swab more then 4 frogs in a batch. So, for most though that is a 'typical' frog purchase. One test for the group, unless they wanted individual tests run on each frog?


What about swabbing the parents? An ad that lists the frogs for sale, parents and parent's last test date. This would, of course, mean that froglets shouldn't be mixed in a froglet tank from multiple breeders.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

So, you`re at a show and a big time vendor (no one in particular) has 2 or 3 large plastic containers with 10 different frogs in each one. What then? Am I to assume they`ve been handled with a glove change or different frog catcher tube for each one? Do I ask if every one of those 20/30 frogs have been tested? I`ve seen this many times at many different shows.
Please don`t pm me as to who it is.

John


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm so happy to see the driving force of the hobby proposing widespread standards and expectations. It's a shame that it took a few very regrettable situations to make it more public, but hopefully we can use it to strengthen our captive cause.

I suppose that it will be the end to an era of lax or nonexistent protocols regarding quarantine, and assumptions of health based on appearance.

What about forming some sort of loose coalition of breeders/keepers/hobbyists that are willing to work together to maintain accountability among themselves for a certain standard of husbandry? As I write that, I keep thinking that it's already here in DB, however disciplining someone that abuses the system, or misrepresents any information, would be best dealt with outside of a privately owned forum.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

Dane said:


> I'm so happy to see the driving force of the hobby proposing widespread standards and expectations. It's a shame that it took a few very regrettable situations to make it more public, but hopefully we can use it to strengthen our captive cause.
> 
> I suppose that it will be the end to an era of lax or nonexistent protocols regarding quarantine, and assumptions of health based on appearance.
> 
> What about forming some sort of loose coalition of breeders/keepers/hobbyists that are willing to work together to maintain accountability among themselves for a certain standard of husbandry? As I write that, I keep thinking that it's already here in DB, however disciplining someone that abuses the system, or misrepresents any information, would be best dealt with outside of a privately owned forum.


There was talk of this a couple years ago calling it Dart frog breeders union....It talked about all of this and got a lot of resistance....Not sure if it was timing or one of the froggers involved trying to create it but it didn't get anywhere...Maybe now is the time...

As far as testing presale I would pay that cost as it is a starting point as they are received this way you know where you are starting from as opposed as an unknown quanity as it is now in the hobby. I think it would still be my responsability to still QT and test again along with fecals....I think if it is thought as part of the price instead of an additional cost it might be better received by the hobby....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogface said:


> What about swabbing the parents? An ad that lists the frogs for sale, parents and parent's last test date. This would, of course, mean that froglets shouldn't be mixed in a froglet tank from multiple breeders.



Kris, 
testing the adults is fine and what I was getting at above. Testing collections on a annual basis is a good benchmark but probably going to be prohibitive for those with large collections. 

I'm going to give the mixed froglets a maybe. If all of the adults were negative, then the froglets that originated from those parents should be clean..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> So, you`re at a show and a big time vendor (no one in particular) has 2 or 3 large plastic containers with 10 different frogs in each one. What then? Am I to assume they`ve been handled with a glove change or different frog catcher tube for each one? Do I ask if every one of those 20/30 frogs have been tested? I`ve seen this many times at many different shows.
> Please don`t pm me as to who it is.
> 
> John


That is when testing by the buyer comes into play. Keep in mind that what we are discussing is an increase in costs in multiple ways. If it become too prohibitive then sellers are going to ignore it, and buyers are going to look for the cheaper sources. 
In the above case, your increasing table space requirements, caging space, and being able to haul all of the caging safely without cross contamination. Personally, I would prefer to know about it at the time of purchase, instead of having them seperated into tubs at the show but being hauled back and forth in the same tub to save space......

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

An article relevant to the discussion here http://www.ravon.nl/Portals/0/Pdf/Spitzen Chytrid terrarium AR 2011.pdf

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Azurel said:


> There was talk of this a couple years ago calling it Dart frog breeders union....It talked about all of this and got a lot of resistance....Not sure if it was timing or one of the froggers involved trying to create it but it didn't get anywhere...Maybe now is the time...


I do remember that, and it seemed like a personal powergrab by one of the individuals. The idea had some merit, though.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> I do remember that, and it seemed like a personal powergrab by one of the individuals. The idea had some merit, though.


You remember correctly, it was also pretty clear that the initial intent was also price fixing... although when that was pointed out to be illegal. It was dropped off the main stage for back room discussions on how to get it to work. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

Dane said:


> I do remember that, and it seemed like a personal powergrab by one of the individuals. The idea had some merit, though.


Exactly.....which quite a few of the froggers that were the base of that have parted ways and hate each other......but yes as an early member to be in the discussions it did have merit and I think besides the personal issues had some good ideas.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Ed said:


> An article relevant to the discussion here http://www.ravon.nl/Portals/0/Pdf/Spitzen Chytrid terrarium AR 2011.pdf
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I can`t open this and it`s really pissing me off.
Thanks anyway Ed.

John


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

pafrogguy said:


> Also what is not to say the seller could be unscrupulous about the test he/she was sharing with you? I think it would be great if we could all offer test results with all the animals we sell, but agree the cost would hinder people from buying I think. I mean folks are selling frogs for $20 nowadays, and you double that or better after the test. Sure folks may say they are for it now, but when it comes time to hand over the money to do so.... well I honestly think it would be a different story.


I think the buyer still needs to do their own QT and testing. Having sellers test their collections, and, advertise various frogs as coming from tested groups, won't guarantee anything. However, if it is done on a large enough scale, it changes how people look at the responsibility of frog ownership. 

I see two sellers selling frogs I want. One indicates that the parent group was tested, the other makes no note of testing. As an experienced buyer, I'll pay more for the tested group. As a noob buyer, I'll want to know why one is testing and the other isn't, and what it's all about. When I start selling my own frogs, I'll want to be one of the testers because all the cool froggers test. Thus it gets passed along the frog chain and becomes standard.

Short of full necropsy just prior to shipping, I don't think any frog can be guaranteed to be free of disease.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> I can`t open this and it`s really pissing me off.
> Thanks anyway Ed.
> 
> John


John,

PM me your e-mail 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

sports_doc said:


> ^ Generally I don't treat, or test early on when I receive animals. Mainly because I've killed many WC/FR animals by the added stress of QT + handling + meds/treatment .... I think. So I now keep new arrivals settled in QT, moss/water container/leaf litter/banana chunk and all niceties....and then test many weeks later [usually > 4, if not 8]. The old papertowel/ sterile container QT was never successful, for me.
> 
> So, what would you do?


This is, essentially, my fear. I like Dr. Shawn's regimen for new arrivals. Shawn, could you possibly show us a couple of pics and explain your regimen?

Three serious questions:

1 ) For hobbyists (not large-scale hobbyists or breeders), can a sensible quarantine regimen--similar to above--without testing work? If so, what would be the recommended quarantine period? Six weeks? two months?

2) After quarantine, if the frogs are to only go into their own enclosure--or only with their own species, then is it not the case that careful husbandry practices should minimize the risk to the rest of a collection? 

3) For large scale people--maybe this needs to be quantified--I feel this way: If you can afford 30 tanks, you can afford to test. Is this a fair assertion?


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Dane said:


> What about forming some sort of loose coalition of breeders/keepers/hobbyists that are willing to work together to maintain accountability among themselves for a certain standard of husbandry?


TWI/ ASN, no?

Sorta lost its initial momentum, but why reinvent the wheel. We can use them for support.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> So, you`re at a show and a big time vendor (no one in particular) has 2 or 3 large plastic containers with 10 different frogs in each one. What then? Am I to assume they`ve been handled with a glove change or different frog catcher tube for each one? Do I ask if every one of those 20/30 frogs have been tested? I`ve seen this many times at many different shows.
> Please don`t pm me as to who it is.
> 
> John


Once again, the enlightened one asks the right question(s). 

Now most vendors I see: 

--Do use frog catchers;
--Or display their amphibians in separate deli containers.

However, the problem with the first is that the vendor is dealing with several items at a show--animals, feeder insects, plants, dry goods, customer's hands. etc. (Do not minimize the last point; I know this does not apply to PDFs, but I ain't buying a reptile without examining it. I then go to a vendor to pick out some plants for my new pal--well, you get it...).

The problem with the second is obvious: How are the frogs kept when not on display? 

I suggest that there are two issues here--they are coterminous, but not identical:

1) How to best insure the safety of one's existing collection;
2) How to prevent bad or irresponsible behavior from spreading to other people's collections. We all know the thread that was recently closed discussing a hobby disaster...

Here I shall be blunt: The only solution would be to prohibit a demonstrated irresponsible vendor from vending. Yes, this would entail naming names on venues such as these... 

The alternative, pre-screening (or licensing) buyers, is not feasible. 

(After all, anything else is what what we are doing now--recommendations. The problem is that people take these as _suggestions_ rather than _requirements_--which means they only reach those who are already receptive...)


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Shawn, Again I`m not big a time breeder/seller but I think this thread is pretty damn important. I`ve learned many things reading this that I didn`t know before.
Thanks.

John


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

John

I think the vendor/show questions are valid for sure. 

I've vended 6 times in my hobby time....3 at AFD, 2 at IAD, 1 at the BJ show [what was it, North American something]....and the 'pressures' noted are true. You have to pack up animals into boxes, transport, sort them [Some vendors do this in the hotel rooms, some at home, some at their tables], and then bring home the extras. 

I can easily see maintaining sterility a big problem.

Also, many of the shows we all attend and love are not frog only. Cross contamination with other genus/family is certainly a possibility.

In fact other hobbies have their own 'issues' with pathogens, and I'll be blue b/f I see reptile vendors 'certifying' each other, or keeping vendors away b/c of [lack there of] testing.

Most combined shows don't even have WC restrictions, and the animals are handled left and right.

By their very nature amphibians are less likely to be touched, yes. And more likely to be show individually/paired, but the entire process of showing is wrought with potential.

I still have to believe that the hobby wants to see more testing, more collections being 'safe', and willing to pay for it. I am not sure that would be the case for most buyers at shows, but the few on forums and FB groups are special hobbyists by their inclusion.

I think the day has come to give this a try.

*Whats the worst that will happen*? Some PCR labs will prosper, frogs sales will still remain pitifully slow [other than the bargain frogs], and some of us will improve our husbandry 'despite' the lack of support. 

I think people dont test, b/c they fear the obvious. That they are not as clean and carefree as they would like to believe.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

A version of this is posted elsewhere. 

I hope that that goal of this discussion isn't to 'out' froggers. 

My simple opinion, is that we gain nothing from that.

I can hope we are changing practices.

I can hope we all learn something new from this [I have].

I can hope that you all realize you are not as safe as you think, unless you really do practice the 'perfect' QT husbandry Ed outlined, and has previously been outlined by TWI. [Some may, so those I look up to]

I think the value of this thread is for us to decide what is important regarding testing, QT, responsibility [both ways buyer and seller].

We can change, by demanding, and paying for better frankly. But, it is going to be at a compromise. We all are responsible for where we are now.

Everyone who has bought animals, and tossed them into their 'awesome' vivs! Responsible.

Everyone who has shiny new WC/FR animals and hasn't done full QT and treatments. Responsible.

Everyone who has traded frogs, sold frogs, loaned frogs to their 'friends' with no thought of even testing. Responsible.

Everyone who has ignored this topic, for years, except for the intermittent crisis thread. Responsible. 

Everyone who has moved plants around, wood, moved their hands from tank to tank, riffled through leaf litter looking for froglets, and then closed the doors and moved throughout the room. Responsible. 

Just my opinion, but I think we can be more constructive on our forum.

Anyway, I am off to the frog room for some weekend maintenance. Have to don my HazMat suit first, take my decontamination shower, and double glove my disease riddled finger nails...Sure hope I can tell what is breeding from my 10 foot vantage point.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> Three serious questions[/U]:
> 
> 1 ) For hobbyists (not large-scale hobbyists or breeders), can a sensible quarantine regimen--similar to above--without testing work? If so, what would be the recommended quarantine period? Six weeks? two months?


In short.. NO. The problem is that the frogs can remain asymptomatic for long periods of time (potentially their whole life). 



Groundhog said:


> 2) After quarantine, if the frogs are to only go into their own enclosure--or only with their own species, then is it not the case that careful husbandry practices should minimize the risk to the rest of a collection?


In short, yes. 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

> Anyway, I am off to the frog room for some weekend maintenance. Have to don my HazMat suit first, take my decontamination shower, and double glove my disease riddled finger nails...Sure hope I can tell what is breeding from my 10 foot vantage point.


LMAO, that is exactly how I feel right now. Thank you for the grin


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> 1) How to best insure the safety of one's existing collection;
> 2) How to prevent bad or irresponsible behavior from spreading to other people's collections. We all know the thread that was recently closed discussing a hobby disaster...


Simple... Quarantine and testing. Good husbandry practices at home. 



Groundhog said:


> Here I shall be blunt: The only solution would be to prohibit a demonstrated irresponsible vendor from vending. Yes, this would entail naming names on venues such as these...


Who defines irresponsible vending?
Would you be okay with a person catching a frog from a tub at a show by hand after using hand sanitizer? How do you expect them to get the frogs into the cups? 
With respect to the idea of the frogs in cups... what if the person used one frog catcher for all of the frogs in the cups? You would never know because it would have happened before you came onto the scene. 



Groundhog said:


> (After all, anything else is what what we are doing now--recommendations. The problem is that people take these as _suggestions_ rather than _requirements_--which means they only reach those who are already receptive...)


Unless a duly elected legislative body enacts laws on how to do it, it is always going to be a suggestion. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

sports_doc said:


> Anyway, I am off to the frog room for some weekend maintenance. Have to don my HazMat suit first, take my decontamination shower, and double glove my disease riddled finger nails...Sure hope I can tell what is breeding from my 10 foot vantage point.


I would have thought you would have automated the system by now... 

Ed


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

It's not very difficult to set up a QT area like ED posted. I've done it and it was easy. A small extra bedroom. I also left a pair of sandles at the door and used them when entering the room, slipping them off when leaving. 

The only thing I didn't do on that list in change clothes, but was very careful not to touch anything. If I had long sleeves on they were pulled up to the elbows before going in. Gloves always worn and left behind when leaving.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

frogfreak said:


> It's not very difficult to set up a QT area like ED posted. I've done it and it was easy. A small extra bedroom. I also left a pair of sandles at the door and used them when entering the room, slipping them off when leaving.
> 
> The only thing I didn't do on that list in change clothes, but was very careful not to touch anything. If I had long sleeves on they were pulled up to the elbows before going in. Gloves always worn and left behind when leaving.


I too use a spare room. It's on the far opposite end of my house. I didn't think about clothes but I do take off anything loose and hanging. I put my hair back in a pony tail. Gloves, paper towels, are left in the double trash bag that is kept in the room. All supplies; cups, supplement, ff cultures, gloves etc, are new and exclusive for this QT. Nothing that has gone in there has come out, except the frogs on swabbing day (and they were cupped and boxed before carrying them through the house).

That said, I only, just today, realized that I allow my cat access to that room. She likes to look out the window. Now I look like a fool (and keep the door closed). 

I feel like my QT is pretty strong, but, even so, I have notified someone, who was getting froglets from me, that we need to cancel or at least delay the transaction. These are freebie froglets just because I'm nice, but, I will test them before I send them, if they are still wanted.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Ed said:


> Who defines irresponsible vending?
> Would you be okay with a person catching a frog from a tub at a show by hand after using hand sanitizer? How do you expect them to get the frogs into the cups?
> With respect to the idea of the frogs in cups... what if the person used one frog catcher for all of the frogs in the cups? You would never know because it would have happened before you came onto the scene.





Ed said:


> Unless a duly elected legislative body enacts laws on how to do it, it is always going to be a suggestion.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I tend to think of the problem not in terms of "who defines," but as "what defines," which was addressed in the beginning of this thread. Still I maintain that the concept of "irresponsible vending" does not have to be solipsism; we as a community can come come up with a coherent set of "best practices"--which I took to be the goal of Shawn's thread. That said:

1) Enforcement of any kind will always be more feasible on the vending side of the equation. I have to believe that most knowledgeable hobbyists would concur that some recent well-known RETF antics were a clear case of "irresponsible vending..." For anyone to suggest otherwise strains credulity...

2) But on the buyer side, this is a more difficult case. As in any area of life:

--Some people get into a hobby not fully aware of its aspects;
--Some people view hobbies as endeavors that are by definition not serious--in other words, they do these to escape life's intricacies, not immerse themselves in them. This can apply to pets, gardening, playing golf, etc.;

Paradoxically, in some cases, certain endeavors do seem to encourage more emotional commitment; seems that many people who play golf, tinker with their car, collect wine, etc. do try to learn all they can. By contrast, I've seen too many pet keepers--dogs, snakes, marine fish--go too far, too fast, looking for that shortcut or quick fix... They have a disaster, and then move on to another hobby. Difference is, frogs ain't golf coins or stamps...

3) This must be addressed: Many people who get pets simply do not have a lot of money. They may want to find a place in their lives for two cats, or four snakes or two fish tanks or three frog vivaria. They are trying to find a balance; they realize they cannot afford 40 snakes or twelve vivaria. But they would like to have a couple of pets. Are these folks to be discouraged because they can't go "state of the art" in every aspect of the hobby? Is the parent who takes his/her kid to Petco to get a White's tree frog and set up and book for the kid's birthday doing something wrong? 

Is it really fair or feasible (not the same) to suggest that "if you cannot afford to test, you really cannot afford to keep frogs?"


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Kris, remember our pm`s from this morning, you`re not a fool either.

John


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Groundhog said:


> Is it really fair or feasible (not the same) to suggest that "if you cannot afford to test, you really cannot afford to keep frogs?"


Sorry for snipping your post, Groundhog, but I wanted to focus on this. I think the answer is yes, if you cannot afford to test you cannot afford to keep frogs. The person who buys a cat or especially a dog, considers the cost of shots, rabies vaccines, etc when they purchase that animal. The law will even come after you if you cannot document that you are keeping up with it. It is important and considered part of the ownership of these animals. 

I see no difference in frogs.


eta: to clarify, I mean I see no difference in considering the cost of testing in the overall cost of purchasing the frog. I don't mean that I'm ready for the law to start licensing our frogs


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

frogface said:


> Sorry for snipping your post, Groundhog, but I wanted to focus on this. I think the answer is yes, if you cannot afford to test you cannot afford to keep frogs. *The person who buys a cat or especially a dog, considers the cost of shots, rabies vaccines, etc when they purchase that animal. The law will even come after you if you cannot document that you are keeping up with it.* It is important and considered part of the ownership of these animals.
> 
> I see no difference in frogs.
> 
> ...


This is simply not true. Many/most people have absolutely no idea at the actual cost of owning a cat or dog. The law only cares if rabies vaccines aren't kept up with (due to public health concerns) or if actual animal cruelty/neglect is occurring (usually requiring a complaint from a 3rd party to identify and start proceedings). Pets are considered chattel - there are no repercussions to feeding poor quality food, not getting recommended vaccines, letting them breed indiscriminately, breeding them irresponsibly, or (frequently) abandoning them. 

Best husbandry practices in companion animals are considered important by some, but not by many, and not by the law. It's a noble goal for frog keeping, but it's not the way pets are looked at by the laws or by the general public.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

frogface said:


> Sorry for snipping your post, Groundhog, but I wanted to focus on this. I think the answer is yes, if you cannot afford to test you cannot afford to keep frogs. The person who buys a cat or especially a dog, considers the cost of shots, rabies vaccines, etc when they purchase that animal. The law will even come after you if you cannot document that you are keeping up with it. It is important and considered part of the ownership of these animals.
> 
> I see no difference in frogs.
> 
> ...


No apology needed, you did not take my comment out of context. 

What you write makes sense--to a point. Let me clarify: I recognize the difference between the responsible person and clown who each have pets. But--please focus on this--I believe it is a very slippery slope to, "If you do not use _this_ dog food, or _this_ supplement, or _these_ LED lights, or go to _this_ vet, etc.," then you are giving your pets sub-par care!!" 

_OR_

"Only professional institutions should be permitted to maintain exotics."

You know that there are people--of varying degrees of seriousness and influence--who actually believe one or the statements above...

From the perspective of historical sociology, menageries, collections, pets, were always the purview of the upper classes. until comparatively recently, most other people kept animals for utility. I think, on balance it is a good thing that more and more kids (especially kids of color) are getting into different pets; Triumph the Comic dog notwithstanding, snakes and tarantulas are no longer the eccentricity of academic nerds. Now, I know that some people will acquire herps cause they're ^#@$& awesome, or so prehistoric, or as exotic status symbols. And some people will, alas, be morons. 

Still, I think it is good thing when a parent says, "We cannot afford a rottweiler or great dane, but we afford a bearded dragon or corn snake or white's tree frog or pacman frog." Of course, PDFs are probably not the first choice for many of these families--but other amphibians may be, so the this certainly not irrelevant here. I would simply suggest that it is the responsibility of the vendor to offer healthy animals; it is the responsibility of the pet owner to do their homework.

Two serious Q's: 

--Is it feasible to push a policy whereby pet chains--Petco, Petsmart, Petland, etc--test their amphibians? 
--Adoption outfits: Are already strained to the max--but many will try to take in exotics. No, they are not going to do swabs for the occasional frog; many are lucky if they can work with a dog and cat vet... But I hope that no one here would seriously suggest that it would be better for these frogs and newts to be euthanized rather than re-homed... 

And full disclosure: I am not reflexively opposed to licensing. I am yer typical blue-state lib-er-al who believes in seat belt laws and sugary drink taxes. That said, I am well aware that many people would be able to pass a licensing exam, then proceed to behave differently in their own homes. Now, that we can all agree, is irresponsible.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Calivet said:


> This is simply not true. Many/most people have absolutely no idea at the actual cost of owning a cat or dog. The law only cares if rabies vaccines aren't kept up with (due to public health concerns) or if actual animal cruelty/neglect is occurring (usually requiring a complaint from a 3rd party to identify and start proceedings). Pets are considered chattel - there are no repercussions to feeding poor quality food, not getting recommended vaccines, letting them breed indiscriminately, breeding them irresponsibly, or (frequently) abandoning them.
> 
> Best husbandry practices in companion animals are considered important by some, but not by many, and not by the law. It's a noble goal for frog keeping, but it's not the way pets are looked at by the laws or by the general public.


Alas, you are correct... Although I think Frogface won't mind if I suggest that she meant that "a [responsible] person who buys... will consider the costs of..." On this, she is also correct.

I would only add that many smaller animals--bettas, fire-bellied toads, anoles, keets, hamsters, etc. are still viewed by some people as "disposable" pets.

And is not that the whole philosophical problem with pet-keeping? Those that are disposed to be responsible will be--but there are others, many others. To reiterate, no one cares if one is a fool with coins or stamps...

I would love to see the Freakonomics guys tackle the following question: How long would the pet industry last if morons were not able to own pets?!?


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Serious question for Shawn, our moderator:

I get that you are trying to construct a best practices regimen for responsible hobbyists. But I got to thinking, as you are an M.D.: Can we not draw an analogy between best pet practices and best health practices? Try as we might to educate and persuade, there are still people who smoke, drink to excess, do not eat right, practice unsafe sex. What are we to do? Report such people? Tax them? Fine them? And where is the primary burden of responsibility--the vendor or the consumer? Of course, society generally protects those that have not reached the age of majority--but after that, adults have a "right" to live their lives. Problem is, the rest of us end up paying the fiddler (insurance costs, STDs, second-hand smoke...) Still, I find no one who believes that doctors should have a legal or existential right to dope-slap their patients...

And more to the point here, what do best practices for those too stubborn or dumb to heed them? I, as an informed hobbyist, know to avoid certain vendors (their practices) and certain species (my conditions), and my pets benefit. But I did not know as much twenty years ago, and was still considered by peers to be an above-average herpetoculturist (then again, we did not have venues like these). But what do we do with people who are unwilling/unable to learn?


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

^ We dope slap them


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I think one difference is that people do that to themselves. Where it effects other people, I think it is illegal and/or getting there; no smoking in public places, charges when you knowingly infect a partner with STD without full disclosure. Other stuff (help me out, Doc  )

With frogs, it's not about that one stupid frog that won't stop partying and eating twinkies.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

frogfreak said:


> It's not very difficult to set up a QT area like ED posted. I've done it and it was easy. A small extra bedroom. I also left a pair of sandles at the door and used them when entering the room, slipping them off when leaving.
> 
> The only thing I didn't do on that list in change clothes, but was very careful not to touch anything. If I had long sleeves on they were pulled up to the elbows before going in. Gloves always worn and left behind when leaving.


LIKE

Yes, but, you did so 'after' a scare right? which is how most of us act, no? Just like people issues, always see the cardiac patients behaving themselves after the MI 

I have a separate room for 'storage', has all the boxes and extra junk in it, next to the FR. Essentially it is the boiler room.....I see it now as the QT ROOM. Hasmat suit at the door.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

sports_doc said:


> LIKE
> 
> Yes, but, you did so 'after' a scare right? which is how most of us act, no? Just like people issues, always see the cardiac patients behaving themselves after the MI


100% correct, Shawn. I've made my mistakes like everyone else. The important part is to learn from them. 

Too bad my buddy didn't listen after his 3rd heart attack...He kept smoking and killed himself. RIP Lou!

Some of us learn faster than others.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I think as part of this discussion we need to discuss issues with testing during quarantine. 
While PCR is the gold standard for testing for things like ranavirus and chytrid, both have their own issues in reliability. Starting with ranavirus, we can see that there can be a false positive rate as high as 12% using swabs and close to 20% for false negatives (see http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/Publications/Grayetal2012.pdf) 

For chytrid we end up with some other potential issues.. for example, the PCR test does not detect infection per se.. what it detects are zoospores and exposure to them so we can have issues with exposure versus actual infection (exposure to a zoospore or zoospores does not automatically indicate infection) so we have the real issue that there may be issues with false positives.. See http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2006/73/d073p253.pdf

In addition to this issue we can have a large false negative response due to the errors in swab collection by hobbyists.. It is well established that contamination of the swab by phenolic compounds can result in a negative test result. Where we run into issues is that phenolic compounds are incredibly common in the environment where we keep the frogs and consists of humic acids. As a result if one is pulling frogs from the leaf litter or off the substrate in the enclosures additional measures are required to ensure that false negatives do not occur. For example, it would require rinsing the frogs and moving them to a secondary enclosure, changing gloves and then sampling the frogs. Note that as I commented above, the PCR test looks for zoospores, so rinsing the frogs may also reduce the number of zoospores giving the appearence of a false negative. 
For a discussion on the risk of phenolic compounds and false negatives see http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ium_dendrobatidis/file/32bfe5113852a7336e.pdf 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Thank you, Ed. 

Considering the potential problem with phenolic compounds, can you recommend an alternative substrate for quarantine tanks? Or, when dealing with terrestrial amphibians, is coir/leaf litter often necessary for psychological well-being? (i.e., moist paper towel with coco huts won't cut it?)


----------



## SMenigoz (Feb 17, 2004)

Ed said:


> I think as part of this discussion we need to discuss issues with testing during quarantine.
> While PCR is the gold standard for testing for things like ranavirus and chytrid, both have their own issues in reliability. Starting with ranavirus, we can see that there can be a false positive rate as high as 12% using swabs and close to 20% for false negatives (see http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/Publications/Grayetal2012.pdf)
> 
> For chytrid we end up with some other potential issues.. for example, the PCR test does not detect infection per se.. what it detects are zoospores and exposure to them so we can have issues with exposure versus actual infection (exposure to a zoospore or zoospores does not automatically indicate infection) so we have the real issue that there may be issues with false positives.. See http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2006/73/d073p253.pdf
> ...


I feel compelled to respond to this thread as one who has been in this hobby for years and have a somewhat sizable collection. I do not test my collection.There, I said it. Will I test moving forward? Hesitantly, yes. Why? I feel this hobby is trending toward informed and responsible breeders (a good thing). Do I think the extra cost I incur with said testing will be passed on to those who purchase from me? I doubt it. To complicate matters, as Ed points out, testing is NOT 100% accurate. A lengthy, multiple testing regime may increase the chance of "cleaner" frogs, but who is willing to pay for this cost? To represent "tested" animals, only to have them develop positive at a later date in their new homes, brings to question whether I've mis-represented the animals as sold. Should I be responsible for the poor husbandry or pre-infected habitats of purchasers? I am really conflicted with this idea... 
Several years ago Kristy (anyone remember her?) posed this very same idea--testing all animals. Similar arguments were offered pro/con...and here we are revisiting it again. What will be different this time? 
I will act accordingly with my collection, fully recognizing it will be an expense/risk I'll have to incur. Im also not so foolish to believe this act will absolve me of any future retribution on DB... unfortunately, not acting at all will yield the same risk.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Ed, two points of clarification, please:

1) Could you discuss the difference between "presence of zoospores" and being "asymptomatic?" Are these functionally synonymous?

2) Concerning asymptomatic chytrid: As many know, I do not keep PDFs, my tanks run too warm. Is it theoretically possible that I may have had (or have) amphibians that would test positive, but never manifested because of high ambient temperatures? _OR_ Is it possible that the high environmental temps would have eliminated the fungus? (i.e., in Summer, high 80s day; high 70s night temps).


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

SMenigoz said:


> I feel compelled to respond to this thread as one who has been in this hobby for years and have a somewhat sizable collection. I do not test my collection.There, I said it. Will I test moving forward? Hesitantly, yes. Why? I feel this hobby is trending toward informed and responsible breeders (a good thing). Do I think the extra cost I incur with said testing will be passed on to those who purchase from me? I doubt it. To complicate matters, as Ed points out, testing is NOT 100% accurate. A lengthy, multiple testing regime may increase the chance of "cleaner" frogs, but who is willing to pay for this cost? To represent "tested" animals, only to have them develop positive at a later date in their new homes, brings to question whether I've mis-represented the animals as sold. Should I be responsible for the poor husbandry or pre-infected habitats of purchasers? I am really conflicted with this idea...
> Several years ago Kristy (anyone remember her?) posed this very same idea--testing all animals. Similar arguments were offered pro/con...and here we are revisiting it again. What will be different this time?
> I will act accordingly with my collection, fully recognizing it will be an expense/risk I'll have to incur. Im also not so foolish to believe this act will absolve me of any future retribution on DB... unfortunately, not acting at all will yield the same risk.


I appreciate your candor. 

--Is it fair to ask you to describe your quarantine regime? 
--Would you be willing to show pics of how your charges are kept (not here, but to a potential buyer)?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> Ed, two points of clarification, please:
> 
> 2) Concerning asymptomatic chytrid: As many know, I do not keep PDFs, my tanks run too warm. Is it theoretically possible that I may have had (or have) amphibians that would test positive, but never manifested because of high ambient temperatures? _OR_ Is it possible that the high environmental temps would have eliminated the fungus? (i.e., in Summer, high 80s day; high 70s night temps).


I'd like to expand upon this question for Ed;
Has there been a study to determine if there is a particular duration, in a given temperature range (in this case I'm assuming 72F and below), that 100% of the darts involved died or became symptomatic?


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Dane said:


> I'd like to expand upon this question for Ed;
> Has there been a study to determine if there is a particular duration, in a given temperature range (in this case I'm assuming 72F and below), that 100% of the darts involved died or became symptomatic?


Okay Dane, let me expand upon your Q: Is there a corollary temperature study where darts and/or other frogs were cured (e.g., =/> 30C)?


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

I will continue to do what I`ve always done. Buy my frogs and supplies from people I know and trust or at a show where I can at least see it in person. Most of the people I know and trust are involved with this thread. 
I don`t breed or sell my frogs, I`m in it just for the sheer pleasure of them being there and trust me they are well cared for. If this comes off a bit snobbish, sorry.
I lost a few frogs way back when because I didn`t listen and "mixed" to have all the pretty colors in one way to small of a tank. Guess what, it didn`t work.
So anyway, thanks for another thread that taught me I still have a lot to learn.

Sorry for the rant but I had a few to many Vicodin today after a serious root canal.

John


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> I don`t breed or sell my frogs, I`m in it just for the sheer pleasure of them being there and trust me they are well cared for. If this comes off a bit snobbish, sorry.


Not at all, John! What would make you think that?


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

frogfreak said:


> Not at all, John! What would make you think that?


Actually Glenn it was the part of me only doing business with the people I know. I don`t know, I thought it didn`t come right.
Thanks for your concern and yes you`re one of those people that we know and trust.

John


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

Enlightened Rogue said:


> Actually Glenn it was the part of me only doing business with the people I know. I don`t know, I thought it didn`t come right.
> Thanks for your concern and yes you`re one of those people that we know and trust.
> 
> John


Thanks, John. There's nothing wrong with that. Most of us do just that.


----------



## srrrio (May 12, 2007)

SMenigoz said:


> I feel compelled to respond to this thread as one who has been in this hobby for years and have a somewhat sizable collection. I do not test my collection.There, I said it. Will I test moving forward? Hesitantly, yes. Why? I feel this hobby is trending toward informed and responsible breeders (a good thing). Do I think the extra cost I incur with said testing will be passed on to those who purchase from me? I doubt it. To complicate matters, as Ed points out, testing is NOT 100% accurate. A lengthy, multiple testing regime may increase the chance of "cleaner" frogs, but who is willing to pay for this cost? To represent "tested" animals, only to have them develop positive at a later date in their new homes, brings to question whether I've mis-represented the animals as sold. Should I be responsible for the poor husbandry or pre-infected habitats of purchasers? I am really conflicted with this idea...
> Several years ago Kristy (anyone remember her?) posed this very same idea--testing all animals. Similar arguments were offered pro/con...and here we are revisiting it again. What will be different this time?
> I will act accordingly with my collection, fully recognizing it will be an expense/risk I'll have to incur. Im also not so foolish to believe this act will absolve me of any future retribution on DB... unfortunately, not acting at all will yield the same risk.


I remember the time you speak of, it was not my favorite. I am hoping this IS a different time. Perhaps the catalyst of change is more sincere this time and the goal truly is… a healthy captive population. 

I have lots of thoughts about your post, but mostly I identify, and hope that the retribution part dissolves in the company of many who feel the same, and also step up to the plate.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Just a few thoughts - for this thread being in the beginner section it is awfully short on details as to HOW to quarantine, HOW to test, and WHEN to test. 

- What type/size enclosure, and what type of substrate(s?) is best?
- How long do you quarantine?
- Do you separate the frogs?
- Do you test the frogs as soon as you get them? Wait a few days/weeks for stress purposes?
- HOW do you actually grab a frog to swab it? Do you have to grab the frog? Where do you have to swab it? How many do you have to swab?
- What is Rana/Chytrid and why should we care?
- What is the address for Rana/Chytrid testing? 
- Where is the link for how/when to do fecals?
- What other parasites matter? 
- maybe a section on zoonosis?

I know some of this info is out there with the search function, but for a beginner sticky these seem like salient points to either be discussed and/or for links to be provided in the first post. Instead this post seems a rather advanced discussion that skips all the basics for someone who just got their first frog and has gleaned that they basically need to set up a CDC camp in their backyard because they bought a pretty blue frog at the reptile show.

Just pointing out this could be more helpful to actual beginners, not trying to criticize.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

Mr Menigoz, I would buy a frog from you anytime and I think plenty of others would also. I`m pretty sure the people I purchased my frogs from did not test the probably 500 they have in their collection. 2 of those frogs I`ve had for 10 years. I feel it was also my responsibility what I did with them when I took them home.
They were separated from my other frogs and I did 2 fecals on each one, and they were put into a tank where no other frog has been. I Know there`s more that needed to be done than that. Again, I don`t breed or sell or trade any of my supplies so there`s not much chance of me infecting someone`s collection.

John


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Hi Ralph, I think this thread is just hashing things through and a more detailed 'how to' will be stickied around for people. 

In my signature, you will see a link to the website for the Association of Reptile and Amphibian Vets. They have a list of vets by state. That might help in locating someone local. 

I'll be seeing my Vet on Wednesday and I'm going to ask them about doing a series of videos on frog disease and testing. They do nice videos that are geared for newer exotic pet owners with very clear, basic instructions.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

I have a question about tadpoles and quarantine/testing. At what point should they be quarantined and tested? Before or after they morph? This is partly a question for me, as I've been given tadpoles several times, and also for those who have bought tadpoles from others and feel they don't need to be quarantined or tested, both of which seem to be a recent trend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> Ed, two points of clarification, please:
> 
> 1) Could you discuss the difference between "presence of zoospores" and being "asymptomatic?" Are these functionally synonymous?


If I understand you correctly. No, they are not synonymous. Asymptomatic animals can be infected but if the infection hasn't progressed to the point that the fungus is shedding zoospores, and so it escapes detection. In addition to the above, chytrid appears to stop growth above 82-86 F, which will also prevent the shedding of zoospores. A third issue is that the PCR can't tell you if the zoospores were alive or dead. It just detects fragments of DNA and these could be present due to zoospores being shed into the enviroment but having since died or become non-infectious (the zoospores become sessile after a period of time and I haven't seen a distinction if both forms are infectious or just the sessile form or just the motile form). 
So in this case we can have infected animals but not shedding being missed (false negative) by the test and we can see false positives due to being exposed to zoospores but not infected. 




Groundhog said:


> 2) Concerning asymptomatic chytrid: As many know, I do not keep PDFs, my tanks run too warm. Is it theoretically possible that I may have had (or have) amphibians that would test positive, but never manifested because of high ambient temperatures? _OR_ Is it possible that the high environmental temps would have eliminated the fungus? (i.e., in Summer, high 80s day; high 70s night temps).


Yes, it is easily possible. In addition, it has been shown that some taxa (like Litoria (Pelodryas) caerulea) not only resist it when kept above 30 C, but can even clear the infection. Some anurans in the wild deliberately bask to help control the infections. 
As for your temperatures being too high... maybe you should consider a well ventilated enclosure and trying either D. truncatus or O. pumilio..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> I'd like to expand upon this question for Ed;
> Has there been a study to determine if there is a particular duration, in a given temperature range (in this case I'm assuming 72F and below), that 100% of the darts involved died or became symptomatic?


Yes, see Cutaneous Chytridiomycosis - WSAVA 2002 Congress for a discussion specific to dendrobatids.. Outside of that, there is a huge body of literature on it and other anuran taxa. 

Some comments 
Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

SMenigoz said:


> pro/con...and here we are revisiting it again. What will be different this time?
> I will act accordingly with my collection, fully recognizing it will be an expense/risk I'll have to incur. Im also not so foolish to believe this act will absolve me of any future retribution on DB... unfortunately, not acting at all will yield the same risk.


Scott, 
I would get frogs from you without a second thought. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jacobi said:


> I have a question about tadpoles and quarantine/testing. At what point should they be quarantined and tested? Before or after they morph? This is partly a question for me, as I've been given tadpoles several times, and also for those who have bought tadpoles from others and feel they don't need to be quarantined or tested, both of which seem to be a recent trend.


Tadpoles can be infected long-term with chytrid as the only thing it attacks are the keratinized portions of the mouthparts. It's only during and after metamorphosis when the keratin containing tissues in the skin form do they become susceptible to death from chytridmycosis. 

They can also act as asymptomatic carriers for ranavirus and if I remember correctly there is at least one coccidian that can survive the metamorphic process in the digestive tract. It appears that the radical changes in the digestive tract may expel at least some of the parasitic types of worms (as occurs with the beneficial pinworms in bullfrogs (a cool topic) see Pryor. G.S. & Bjorndal, K.A. "Effects of the nematode Gyrinicola batrachiensis on development, gut morphology, and fermentation in bullfrog tadpoles (Rana catesbeiana): a novel mutualism". J. Exp. Zool. 2005. 303A: 704-712 \

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

I think this is a good thread.

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-health-disease-treatment/24598-darts-w-parasites.html


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Calivet said:


> Just a few thoughts - for this thread being in the beginner section it is awfully short on details as to HOW to quarantine, HOW to test, and WHEN to test.
> 
> ...


Hi Ralph,

Here is a thread that may answer some/all of your questions: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...t/26685-asn-quarantine-medical-protocols.html

Found here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/11865-good-threads-read-beginners.html


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> I think this is a good thread.
> 
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-health-disease-treatment/24598-darts-w-parasites.html


I think we should also indicate that some of the data has indicated that treating for a parasite may not be in the best interest of the afflicted animals. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed: Do you think in the last few years the philosophy has changed? What do you think of my last post in that thread?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

I have a question. Suppose one were to everything on the the ideal qt list, what would be the proper protocol for washing the clothes worn in the qt room?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I have a question. Suppose one were to everything on the the ideal qt list, what would be the proper protocol for washing the clothes worn in the qt room?


Washing in hot water (>80 C) has been shown to deactivate other iridovirus species and more specifically with ranavirus, temperatures above 60 C for at least 30 minutes will also deactivate the virus. So set the washers to hot and rinse hot.... 
See for example http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/ranavirus/2012publications/lafauceetal2012.pdf

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed: Do you think in the last few years the philosophy has changed? What do you think of my last post in that thread?


I can tell you that the argument that none are beneficial is incorrect... See for example Effects of the nematode Gyrinicola batrachiensis on development, gut morphology, and fermentation in bullfrog tadpoles (Rana catesbeiana): a novel mutualism - Pryor - 2005 - Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Comparative Experimental Biology - W 
Now in excess, oxyurids are known to be an issue but they can be an important part of the digestive process (see for example herbivorous tortoises, horned lizards). 

In addition to those effects, a number of parasites compete for space and thus can impact their effect on the host.. for example see An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (not free access sorry) 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

Ed....you are the only person I have come across that would write:

parasitic types of worms (as occurs with the beneficial pinworms in bullfrogs (a cool topic)


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Not to derail, but would not this be mutualism, rather than parasitism? 

Hmnnn... and what of that isopod that eats a fish's tongue, and then actually attachs and functionally replaces it?!? (Predator? Parasite? Commensal? Symbiote? Epiphyte?*)





(*That's a Jest, Ed)


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> Not to derail, but would not this be mutualism, rather than parasitism?
> 
> Hmnnn... and what of that isopod that eats a fish's tongue, and then actually attachs and functionally replaces it?!? (Predator? Parasite? Commensal? Symbiote? Epiphyte?*)
> 
> (*That's a Jest, Ed)


It's only mutalism up a point.. which is when the levels of oxyurids get to the point where they are negatively impacting the host which is why it is considered a case of parasitism. We can extrapolate this out even further (again another cool topic) and look at the entire theory about how the lack of parasitic infections could be responsible for some immune system dysfunctions.. See for example Helminths and the IBD hygiene hypothesis - Weinstock - 2008 - Inflammatory Bowel Diseases - Wiley Online Library 

I figured it was a jest when you included ephiphyte.... but in that case it is a parasite since it doesn't provide any benefit that wasn't already there and costs the fish resources.... Still another cool (but gross thing)... there is an interesting modern Cthulhu Mythos based on that parasite.. If you like that kind of story I suggest The Apocalypse Codex by Charles Stross. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Judy S said:


> Ed....you are the only person I have come across that would write:
> 
> parasitic types of worms (as occurs with the beneficial pinworms in bullfrogs (a cool topic)


I let my inner geek flag fly.. what can I say... 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

So certain parasites are permissible in small amounts(pinworms), others are practically unavoidable and can be bad, but can also be self limiting(coccidia), a few have potential to do serious damage but are still almost ubiquitous(hook/Rhabdias lungworms).

Chytrid is intolerable, but rare, and treatable. Ranavirus is...?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> So certain parasites are permissible in small amounts(pinworms), others are practically unavoidable and can be bad, but can also be self limiting(coccidia), a few have potential to do serious damage but are still almost ubiquitous(hook/Rhabdias lungworms).


Pretty much and there are a number of vets who now consider if the animals is handling the infection well that treating may not be the best thing for the frogs. 



Dendrobait said:


> Chytrid is intolerable, but rare, and treatable. Ranavirus is...?


with respect to ranavirus, as I've noted several times already, many of the frogs can clear the infections themselves, resulting in immunity (just like if you got the measles as a kid) but you have to identify any potential asymptomatic carriers and be able to manage a strict quarantine of any frogs until they are cleared of the infection. This is why some people choose to euthanize the animals but if you can quarantine well, you can get the frogs through it and produce uninfected tadpoles. For those who don't want to worry about cross-infection, they can wear tyvek suits (see Tyvek Suits, Tyvek Suit in Stock - ULINE. If care is taken these can be worn repeatedly during a quarantine period.. I've always hated wearing them as the fabric doesn't breath and can be cumbersom. You could always just order the sleeves and use them in conjunction with a lab coat and booties. 
I forgot to mention above some form of inexpensive shoe that is only worn inside the quarantine room can help prevent tracking anything around the house. 

I don't know if we can label chytrid as intolerable is appropriate since if the temperatures are warm enough, the frogs can potentially clear the infection themselves, and at those temperatures it doesn't kill them. We need to keep in mind that the hobby often recommends keeping the frogs much cooler year round than the frogs themselves would experience as a consequence of keeping the humidity artificially high through tightly sealed enclosures. The tightly sealed enclosures typically cause the enclosures to heat above the room and the high humidity prevents the frogs from evaporative cooling. The prevention of the evaporative cooling prevents the frogs from being able to physiologically cooling themselves as well as engaging in things like basking or behavioral fevers. I would say that a confirmed positive test (retest through seperate vendor, staining of shed skin, active symptoms) would require treatment since if strains of Bd can exchange DNA, we can see an increased virulence. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

So then what good would certification do? If parasite free dart frogs are not practical for the average hobbyist or even zoological institutions...

I think it is a very attainable goal to insure collections stay chytrid free, however.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> So then what good would certification do? If parasite free dart frogs are not practical for the average hobbyist or even zoological institutions...


I think I've been pretty clear on the problems with that sort of goal for a long-time now... For example, if your frogs have oxyurids but are showing no negative signs, it is going to be better for the frogs to leave them alone, than if you pull them out of the cage and begin treating them. The reason is that oxyurids may be enabling a more through breakdown of exoskeletons, freeing more nutrients for the frogs and unless the numbers are so great they are preventing nutrient uptake, that extra nutrition is going to be to the frogs' benefit. 
*As I've noted multiple times in the last at least 5 years ( and probably much longer), a negative fecal or other test does not indicate that the frog is free of that parasite/disease, just that nothing was detected at that time. Multiple tests increase the chance that you will detect that there is something wrong with the animals but it doesn't guarantee that the frog is free of those parasites/pathogens. A repeated positive test from a reputable lab/vet is a much better indicator (provided the person also evaluates the health of the frog) but still isn't 100% proof. *



Dendrobait said:


> I think it is a very attainable goal to insure collections stay chytrid free, however.


I'm much more concerned about the escape of strains of chytrid new to the local environment from the hobby than I am of it's occurance in the hobby collections. A large part of that is because, the susceptiability of the captive collections to death by chytrid is in large part due to how people keep their frogs. If people adopted some different tactics the risk to the collection would be much smaller. A classic example of this would be allowing the enclosure temperatures to rise above 80F... People tend to begin to hyperventilate and point out that a mass death is inevitable if the temperatures begin to get in those zones... This is due to the fact that people seal thier tanks up tightly and try to achieve humidity in excess of 90%... 
It is even more interesting when we look at the temperature choices of some of the frogs... for example D. auratus prefers tadpole deposition sites that run about 78 F... We can then further extrapolate this with respect to granulifera since it is documented that auratus and granulifera compete for tadpole deposition sites when sympatric together in the wild.... An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie This would indicate that granulifera may also prefer 78 F for tadpole deposition sites.... 

We probably won't see a good handle on chytrid in the hobby until
1) people stop trading cuttings or plants from their enclosures 
2) people stop putting un-quarantined animals into their destined enclosures
3) people stop collecting live mosses
4) people change their husbandry methedology (such as temperatures, preventing exchange of invertebrates between enclosures and the environment).... 

I would be much more interested in seeing everyone bleach waste water from enclosures and double bag and dispose of all solid materials into the proper waste stream. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Thanks Ed for your knowledge and insight. A hypothetical but at the same time very real question.

1. You are faced with a choice of buying a healthy pair of frogs from two vendors/breeders. One does chytrid/ranavirus/fecal checks on his collection. He admits that the frogs have tested positive for(insert parasite here, say, rhabdias lungworms, coccidia, etc. )-but they look splendid and he's had them for several years. The second vendor has done no testing, his frogs are just as nice looking and with similar history to the first vendor(LTC or bred by the breeder who has a relatively low throughfare of livestock through his collection). Would you buy the first pair of frogs?

2. I guess then this also brings us to the popular question of reusing vivs which previously housed other dart frogs(the use of vivs which previously housed other reptiles and amphibians is out of question). The general consensus and the safest of course is to break down such tanks and bleach them out. But we roll the dice as we add things back in-the more complex the setup, the more chances for something to be introduced. But OTOH shouldn't the success of animals in the viv previously be a testament to the vivariums success? The risks I see here are that a frog may be used to its own parasites but not novel parasites in different individuals. 

-all the above assuming captive bred dart frogs of similar kinds.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> 1. Would you buy the first pair of frogs?


I view them as being at the same risk to the rest of my collection. A positive result is a good indication that the parasite is going to be found in the frogs (and I would be making arrangements to have the treatment ready) but I would have to test and confirm it. As for the untested frogs, I'm going to have to test them anyway so given that I'm testing regardless of the source, it doesn't make a real difference to me. This is a take away that many people miss on this topic.. A common thought for people is that the breeder tests the frogs, so if they were negative, I don't have to quarantine or I can shorten quarantine requirements. This is my point from above, if you are going to quarantine properly, then you should do so regardless of the source and positive or negative results since you could easily have a false negative or false positive...... 



Dendrobait said:


> 2. I guess then this also brings us to the popular question of reusing vivs which previously housed other dart frogs(the use of vivs which previously housed other reptiles and amphibians is out of question). The general consensus and the safest of course is to break down such tanks and bleach them out. But we roll the dice as we add things back in-the more complex the setup, the more chances for something to be introduced. But OTOH shouldn't the success of animals in the viv previously be a testament to the vivariums success? The risks I see here are that a frog may be used to its own parasites but not novel parasites in different individuals.


The success of the animals in an enclosure should not be considered to be a testament to the enclosure but the husbandry that went into setting it up. There are risks to adding stuff to an enclosure but given that virtually everyone has enclosures that leak fruit flies, you have a consistent ongoing threat of transfer between enclosures. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

The problem is normal low volume hobbyist incur the highest costs and most inefficient methods when they try to do testing for themselves. This means to put it bluntly it isn't getting done nor will it ever if it is left to them. Some people brought in examples of dogs and cats, of which AFAIK people expect when they get these animals from breeders they are current on vaccinations and are disease free. No one I know quarantines a cat. 

I just today called the only vet in my area I am aware of that works with exotics, in order for me to test it will be $108 minimum for chytrid only I assume this is 1 frog, forgot to ask if I can bring 6 frogs for 1 visit. I am of course forced to pay $50 for a visit. They don't even run rana virus and would need to call around to find a source. Given that I am within 30 minutes of a HUGE number of captive bred frogs I think we can safely assume that no one is bothering to test for ranavirus through the only exotic vet I am aware of locally. 

IMO the only way any progress is to be made is if 1 customers start demanding this service, and 2 the breeders step in and start working on it. From there they are the ones who do it enough to invest in figuring out how to get the testing done at far more reasonable prices. They are also the ones who have the most to lose if their collection is compromised, not only could they lose their breeders but they could also trash their reputation. And with dart den around I don't think you can keep it a secret. People seem to ignore the positive aspect of testing by breeders, and that is that the breeder will look for ways they can accurately diagnose for less money and will have the time and motivation to do so to increase their profits. Sure some will cheat, and just lie. But others will probably improve things. 

If this happens then we all have a chance that the methods will improve, costs will come down and the volume and acceptability of testing will increase to the point where actual exotic vets will offer the service and compete on a reasonable cost basis. Until those things happen most people are going to at best quarantine frogs and see if they die / develop symptoms and in most cases just throw them strait into their home vivarium. But we sure cannot count on the local vets that are rolling in cash from crazy cat ladies to try to make things more accessible for our frogs.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Pubfiction said:


> I just today called the only vet in my area I am aware of that works with exotics, in order for me to test it will be $108 minimum for chytrid only I assume this is 1 frog, forgot to ask if I can bring 6 frogs for 1 visit. I am of course forced to pay $50 for a visit. They don't even run rana virus and would need to call around to find a source. Given that I am within 30 minutes of a HUGE number of captive bred frogs I think we can safely assume that no one is bothering to test for ranavirus through the only exotic vet I am aware of locally.


Your vet is gouging you, there are other labs that you can send swabs to for testing that can do PCR for less than $30. Most will offer pooling of samples, allowing you to test multiple enclosures at once. 
If the long term health of your animals is of concern to you, you can't put the entire responsibility of testing on the party selling the frogs.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed said:


> I view them as being at the same risk to the rest of my collection. A positive result is a good indication that the parasite is going to be found in the frogs (and I would be making arrangements to have the treatment ready) but I would have to test and confirm it. As for the untested frogs, I'm going to have to test them anyway so given that I'm testing regardless of the source, it doesn't make a real difference to me. This is a take away that many people miss on this topic.. A common thought for people is that the breeder tests the frogs, so if they were negative, I don't have to quarantine or I can shorten quarantine requirements. This is my point from above, if you are going to quarantine properly, then you should do so regardless of the source and positive or negative results since you could easily have a false negative or false positive......


But is the goal of quarantine and treatment to end up with parasite free frogs?


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Pubfiction said:


> The problem is normal low volume hobbyist incur the highest costs and most inefficient methods when they try to do testing for themselves. This means to put it bluntly it isn't getting done nor will it ever if it is left to them. Some people brought in examples of dogs and cats, of which AFAIK people expect when they get these animals from breeders they are current on vaccinations and are disease free. No one I know quarantines a cat.


The problem is that once a cat is vaccinated it is good for life/or at least for a long period. I would still want to take a new cat in for a check up to determine its health status.


Frogs can not shed a parasite for a time, and then start again. Or get reinfected by various means. There is no way for a breeder to guarantee his/her frogs will remain parasite free. In fact, there really isn't a way for a breeder to guarantee with much chance that his/her frogs are parasite free. But does that mean they are unhealthy?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> But is the goal of quarantine and treatment to end up with parasite free frogs?


While some may view this as the goal of quarantine and testing, given that 
1) parasites/diseases may escape detection during quarantine and testing
2) organisms like pinworms are listed as a parasite but as understanding expands, unless they are causing disease like symptoms, it may be better to not treat... 
3) normal commensuals like many protozoans can cause symptoms requiring treatment with an antiparasitic (for example, metronidazole is often touted as an appetite stimulant however it does not stimulate appetite.. instead if the lack of appetite is due to a protozoal overgrowth, it knocks back the protozoans resulting in the animal feeling better and a return to feeding...). 

it is a virtual impossibility to end up with parasite free frogs. The goal is not and should not be parasite free frogs but frogs free of disease symptoms with a few caveats.. 
caveat number 1- parasites like Rhabdiform lungworms, and hookworms with consultation with your vet, should be treated as these organisms do not require an alternate host and larvae are directly infectious allowing for "super infections" to occur. 
caveat number 2- coccidians as we currently know for sure are not eliminated with treatment (except for the possibility of ponazuril) so treatment during active shedding or signs of disease should be considered with concurrence of your vet 
caveat number 3- chytrid and ranavirus testing is desirable. It is always important to know what you are flushing down the drain as many older cities waste treatment systems either cannot deal with these pathogens or during heavy rainstorms or snow melt discharge untreated sewage into the waterways. 

To sum it up, a parasite free frog, may to some seem to be desirable, but it is a virtual impossibility when you look at all of the factors and can be actively deleterious to the health of an animal to attempt parasite free status. The main goal of quarantine is to introduce as healthy an animal as possible into an established collection and to prevent the introduction of a virulent pathogen or parasite into a naive population (look back at the immune memory as well as potential maternal impacts of exposure to a pathogen/parasite). 
This is also well before we get to the issues with fruit flies roaming...

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Frogs can not shed a parasite for a time, and then start again. Or get reinfected by various means. There is no way for a breeder to guarantee his/her frogs will remain parasite free. In fact, there really isn't a way for a breeder to guarantee with much chance that his/her frogs are parasite free. But does that mean they are unhealthy?


Consider that a frog maybe infected with coccidian(s) and never shed them, being only detectable via histopathology after death... 

A parasite free frog does not mean that the frog is healthy... nor does a healthy frog indicate it has no parasites... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Heartagramtc (Jul 24, 2011)

Ok, so in your opinions, I have a Exo that's been running since the end of December, I've never had frogs, and I'm looking to buy my first group sometime in the future. Do you recommend me qt them and test them? I don't plan on getting other frogs for a very long time. I don't have anything set up for qt, nor do I think I will be allowed another tank for qt, as the wife thinks one tank is more than enough in the house(she knows what would happen if she allowed me to bring in more). So how can I handle the situation? What do you use as qt? Containers? Tanks? Thank you in advance.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Heartagramtc said:


> Ok, so in your opinions, I have a Exo that's been running since the end of December, I've never had frogs, and I'm looking to buy my first group sometime in the future. Do you recommend me qt them and test them? I don't plan on getting other frogs for a very long time. I don't have anything set up for qt, nor do I think I will be allowed another tank for qt, as the wife thinks one tank is more than enough in the house(she knows what would happen if she allowed me to bring in more). So how can I handle the situation? What do you use as qt? Containers? Tanks? Thank you in advance.


You can use many different containers for quarantine. Even in your case, you should consider quarantine as important. For example if you end up with Rhabdiforml lungworms in the enclosure, you will have to strip the enclosure and disinfect it. 
I use the 20 quart Sterilite gasket boxes for quarantine as they can be disinfected, broken down and stored. Or used to store frog supplies when not used. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## VoidDiver (Oct 2, 2014)

Snip


Dane said:


> I'm so happy to see the driving force of the hobby proposing widespread standards and expectations.


It'd make proper procedure immensely easier for newcomers too. Don't get me wrong, I'm spending the time doing my research but I want to do things right and at times it's overwhelming. It doesn't surprise me so many people do things wrong. Educating and proper procedure is time consuming and/or costly. I lightly considered backing out altogether at first as I didn't want to do things wrong and it's a big commitment. There's so many different aspects (I.e. Materials, health, diet, habitat) and within those there's so much information from many sources that furthermore is sometimes at odds with each other. I will continue to educate myself and one, however knowledgable can never know everything, but again it would make life easier if there was a list of "don't be stupid rules of thumb" guidelines and steps.

...for all of the above reasons I appreciate the patience of you long-timers in answering questions and letting us pick your brains.


----------



## VoidDiver (Oct 2, 2014)

Snip


Ed said:


> To sum it up, a parasite free frog, may to some seem to be desirable, but it is a virtual impossibility when you look at all of the factors and can be actively deleterious to the health of an animal to attempt parasite free status. The main goal of quarantine is to introduce as healthy an animal as possible into an established collection and to prevent the introduction of a virulent pathogen or parasite into a naive population (look back at the immune memory as well as potential maternal impacts of exposure to a pathogen/parasite).
> This is also well before we get to the issues with fruit flies roaming...


This is a good point Ed. It raises the question then of what are "socially acceptable" parasites to have (as well as the other on your preferred tank setup). Parasite of course not being the right word if they are non detrimental. As per my thread on the diseases with my frogs, ultimately my eventual plans are to breed and trade/sell. That's one of my big reminders for why one should do things right. If a parasite, such as my nematodes in my case, are not actually detrimental to the frogs health thats one less worry, so long as the likelihood they spread at some point remains a non concern as well as consequently the transfer of the parasite to a frog buyer.


----------



## jturner (Nov 26, 2014)

frogface said:


> Sorry for snipping your post, Groundhog, but I wanted to focus on this. I think the answer is yes, if you cannot afford to test you cannot afford to keep frogs. The person who buys a cat or especially a dog, considers the cost of shots, rabies vaccines, etc when they purchase that animal. The law will even come after you if you cannot document that you are keeping up with it. It is important and considered part of the ownership of these animals.
> 
> I see no difference in frogs.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with this 100% but lets be realistic, most hobbyists don't exactly look at their dart frog the same way as they look at their dog. I agree that people should see no difference between their dogs and frogs as far as care and this would be the ideal situation but this is honestly unrealistic. I have been keeping frogs for quite a few years and when I purchased my first dart frogs the thought of quarantine never crossed my mind and believe me a did my research. I plopped these guys right into a beautiful vivarium and thought that I did everything right. Sure I lost a few frogs over the years but it wasn't until just recently when I lost 3 frogs and all dyed within a month of each other that I even considered quarantining. Obviously not quarantining was a terrible decision on my part and this situation probably could have been avoided if I had known better. I am not saying that every new hobbyist will be stupid like I was but clearly the reason we are having this discussion is the fact that people don't quarantine and test their frogs. 

I think that the big picture goal of quarantining and testing is to have healthy lines of frogs in captivity in order to preserve these beautiful creatures. On a more personal level hobbyists want to have healthy frogs in their collections. Know body likes to lose frogs.

Now the real question is what are the solutions to this. This thread mentions a lot about testing and quarantining and how to get people to do this but there is not a whole lot about treating. I know that the logical order of things is to test diagnose and then treat for any specific problems but I was thinking that it may help the cause if there are some preventative treatments for some more common dart frog illnesses that could be used by or suggested to new hobbyists. Obviously this is not ideal but I think that if there is more widespread treatment for some common issues like worms this could decrease the number of frogs in captivity with these issues which may at least help the bigger goal. I just think that realistically the average hobbyist would be more likely to dust something on feeders then quarantine their frogs for 1+ months paying for and sending in samples to be tested. This could at least cut down on some of the more common issues seen in dart frogs in the hobby. I am not really very educated about this and it is just a thought. My question is if anyone uses preventative treatment, even along with testing their frogs and is it at all plausible?


----------



## jturner (Nov 26, 2014)

whoops that was an old thread I responded too. But anyway this still applies


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

Personally, I like to see "old" threads revisited...shows people ARE reading because too often some of the important information is buried...too bad that a lot of the pictures that are part of the posts are permanently gone.....


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Undiagnosed treatment is not a good idea. Because the downside to it is you can select for organisms that will be resistant to treatment. These organisms then start becoming common in the population and you have a new problem you didn't have before. Resistant pathogens for which we have no good treatment options. 

IMO it is better to not treat at all then to over treat. In the case of not treating at all the selective pressure becomes frogs that can resist pathogens. In the former it is pathogens that can resist treatment. The first is better for the hobby as a whole but may punish individual frogs in homes that do not diagnose. 

Other than that on your first point I understand. Every person has a different level of commitment they can apply to a pet. If I told you that you had to spend $10,000 to treat your frog would you do it? How many here would do it? Yet this happens to many people with cats and dogs. And many of them put the animal down or forgo treatment, does this make them bad people who cannot and should not be keeping pets? I do not think it is our place to judge so long as care of the animal is typical and has a decent chance of success. Lots of people and perhaps the majority of the hobby have successfully kept frogs for decades without many of the things we may consider best practices here. Another example is heating and cooling, we often hear people claim that you should be getting regular fecals and berating people for not practicing this or telling them they should not keep frogs. But we rarely hear people do the same when someone does not have air conditioning or wants to avoid heating their home. And every year in the dead of winter or the height of summer it seems someone loses frogs.


----------

