# NatGeo Piece on Conservation and Smuggling, includes Taron Langover comments



## cml1287 (Mar 29, 2012)

Article


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

This piece should spur some interesting discussion, multiple dart froggers cited, and seems to claim that black foot terribilis are a designer line.


----------



## DPfarr (Nov 24, 2017)

Ahhhh the truths made true by publication.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

_Shepherd notes that bogus captive breeding, in which wild-caught animals are falsely claimed to be captive bred to get around trading restrictions, is an increasingly common method used to traffic animals. That’s because authorities rarely take the time to investigate claims of whether species are truly captive bred.

“Many hobbyists go so far as to publicly shame those who try to market illegally caught frogs,” says Lozano—something that would have been unheard of even a few years ago_.

This stuff is all true, but I wish the article had done a bit more vetting of who they quoted. There is considerable irony in reconciling quotes like those above with who they have chosen to give a soap box to.

Mark


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Agreed Mark,

Giving TL a word here is just ironic as hell.

s


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

This article brings up alot of questions, first which frog is this? and it goes to say that lehmann have fallen a third of the price since being brought in, now where have i seen these frogs offered at that price. 

Tesoros sold its first specimens of the highly trafficked golden poison frog for a hundred dollars each to distributors in the U.S. and Europe, which sold them on to collectors for about $150 apiece. Gradually, as healthy captive-breeding pairs originating from Tesoros began to circulate, prices fell. Today, the same species can be obtained legally for less than $35


Doesnt this go against everything this hobby is about????? creating morphs that are not found in nature. How is no one bringing this up and is not making a big deal about this, is this because no one wants to make waves on this subject because of who is making this "new" morph?

One strategy Lozano uses to discourage smuggling is to offer unique “morphs” of frogs with signature colorations produced exclusively through captive breeding. Because these color patterns aren’t found in nature, this provides further incentive to steer customers away from wild frogs. His most famous one is the “Tesoro Blackfoot”—a morph of the golden poison frog bred to have pitch-black feet that contrast with the otherwise brilliant yellow body.


----------



## Sherman (Oct 29, 2008)

Hey all, 
This article was the first I have heard of the production of "unique "morphs"", so I checked with Tesoros directly.
I was told that the "blackfoot" is a naturally occurring trait that was favored when setting up the breeders.
This is far removed from what is described in the article. These phenotypes are not produced exclusively through captive breeding. They ARE found in nature, therefore have no "signature" properties. These cannot help steer customers clear of wild frogs because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I feel this article was written for the non-frog hobby initiated by someone not initiated in the frog hobby. A healthy dose of "creative freedom" was exercised in its creation. I cite the swollen, stinging hands as another example of this.
The selection could not have been too strong, as that mine don't have black feet on their orange (not yellow 😉 ) bodies.


----------



## DPfarr (Nov 24, 2017)

Interesting that the Instagram for Dart Frog Connection posted an Oophaga lehmanni this morning.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

People need to remember that Nat Geo isn't the same magazine anymore. They changed ownership and reset their standards on writing to no small extent. For those unfamiliar with the switch see https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d7c62189c743

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## varanoid (Jan 21, 2011)

Sherman said:


> Hey all,
> This article was the first I have heard of the production of "unique "morphs"", so I checked with Tesoros directly.
> I was told that the "blackfoot" is a naturally occurring trait that was favored when setting up the breeders.
> This is far removed from what is described in the article. These phenotypes are not produced exclusively through captive breeding. They ARE found in nature, therefore have no "signature" properties. These cannot help steer customers clear of wild frogs because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> ...


The phenotype no doubt exists in the wild. However, they are cherry picking breeding stock to accentuate the desired traits. In this case they selected their breeding stock for exaggerated orange coloration and exaggerated black feet. My understanding is that the animals imported are F2 so they are only a couple of generations into their designer project. Which explains why your black foots don't necessarily exhibit entirely black feet (not all of mine do either) What they are allegedly doing is no different than how the sky blue azureus was created. Or high yellow leopard geckos.

I completely agree that they have taken some creative liberties with the article. And that the person writing the article isn't into the frog keeping hobby at all. If she was, she would have picked someone more respected, and with a clean background, than one of the people she quotes. The fact that she quoted him makes the entire article bogus to me. It says a lot about the depth of reporting she did for the article (like none). Which is unfortunate, because it was meant to highlight Tesoros. TL ruined to entire sentiment of the article for me.

I purchased 5 black foots about a week before the article was published. If I had known they were line bred I may have avoided the purchase all together, and instead purchase another tesoros frog. Then again, I may have purchased them as I would likely own some of the only terribilis in the hobby to be legally imported.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm assuming the interviews from that article occurred during Frog Day this year. Kevin, Taron, and Alex were all vendors, and many of the statements from the article were made during Frog Day or at the hotel that weekend (Kevin told Ivan about him producing the 40 lehmanni and ~80 being attributed to his pair there, and this was the first time Ivan had heard of it.). My assumption is that the author picked three vendors to interview or they were all available to talk at the hotel before/after the event. I doubt she sought out the people she interviewed. 

My issue with the blackfoots and "designer morphs" is not that they're actually doing it. It's the fact that they presented these frogs as some new, undisclosed locality of terribs with naturally occurring black feet when they first came in, not just exceptional specimens selectively bred of the orange terrbilis that we all know and love. There was a similar discussion recently accusing Understory of creating hype with "new" locales to make sales because they are a business at heart. I don't believe Mark to be that kind of a person, businessman or not...I think he has proven himself to the hobby. On the other hand, Tesoros has some issues with their transparency. I don't want to believe it's the case with them, but I do have some doubts. There are other frogs they offer like "Tado" vs. "Tado Pacurita" histos that are "different" but not that much phenotypically, so are these new localities or are they giving them a slightly different name as part of their "designer" program? 

Basically what I'm saying is that if I'm spending $3000+ on a not-guaranteed pair of frogs, I want them to be sustainably sourced representatives of what we see in nature.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

varanoid said:


> The phenotype no doubt exists in the wild. However, they are cherry picking breeding stock to accentuate the desired traits. In this case they selected their breeding stock for exaggerated orange coloration and exaggerated black feet. My understanding is that the animals imported are F2 so they are only a couple of generations into their designer project. Which explains why your black foots don't necessarily exhibit entirely black feet (not all of mine do either) What they are allegedly doing is no different than how the sky blue azureus was created. Or high yellow leopard geckos.



The question comes down to whether or not they are actively working to fix those traits or are they breeding animals from a section of a population that showed a greater amount of this trait from which they chose the "best examples" as the founders. 

If they are not continuing to choose animals to get the trait fixed then it isn't line breeding particularly if they are trying to manage the genetic diversity that from the original founding of the group. Or are they doing like hobbyists do and pick the best animals from the offspring to breed because they like them.... 

The sky blue azureus were selectively bred from the regular population with each generation being chosen for less black dots and lighter blue color with the goal of getting the palest blue with minimal black as the end goal. 
Given that the black foots continue to throw animals of mixed amounts of black on the feet, the trait isn't fixed so at this stage is unlikely to be line bred in animals directly from Tesoros but I have no doubt that the hobby will continue to purchase animals in groups of siblings and chose those with the best examples, finishing the job. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## varanoid (Jan 21, 2011)

Ed said:


> The question comes down to whether or not they are actively working to fix those traits or are they breeding animals from a section of a population that showed a greater amount of this trait from which they chose the "best examples" as the founders.
> 
> If they are not continuing to choose animals to get the trait fixed then it isn't line breeding particularly if they are trying to manage the genetic diversity that from the original founding of the group. Or are they doing like hobbyists do and pick the best animals from the offspring to breed because they like them....
> 
> ...


Thanks for he clarification Ed. I hope Tesoros and hobbyists both don't try and standardize the look of the blackfoot.


----------



## SergeantDude (Feb 27, 2018)

I don't really see the issue with the blackfoots specifically. I understand not wanting to hybridize between species or locales but selecting trait and breeding it out really isn't different than what most people are doing. Anyone but the most conservative breeder will probably want to find 2 adults that express the same same look. That's just human nature. Indirectly that person is breeding for that particular phenotype whether they mean to or not. As long as the trait is natural l and non destructive to the frog I don't see why we need to crucify people for wanting to express it.


----------



## joshlferguson (Oct 20, 2017)

The irony of Taron Langhover's name being in a NatGeo article...Jesus.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

SergeantDude said:


> I don't really see the issue with the blackfoots specifically. I understand not wanting to hybridize between species or locales but selecting trait and breeding it out really isn't different than what most people are doing. Anyone but the most conservative breeder will probably want to find 2 adults that express the same same look. That's just human nature. Indirectly that person is breeding for that particular phenotype whether they mean to or not. As long as the trait is natural l and non destructive to the frog I don't see why we need to crucify people for wanting to express it.


Interesting comment. The problem is that, if you call something black foots but the parents can produce either black foot or non-black foot, the black foots will become more valuable. Therefore, breeders with black feet will be selected to increase the odds of more black foot babies. The real issue is that when you are selecting frogs based on how they look, you are also selecting a certain suite of genes that will tend to come along with that look. While this can be good genes or bad genes, if it's bad, it will be perpetuated and enhanced by the line breeding and the long-term fitness of the morph will be reduced. The good may not be enough to offset the bad. Regardless of good or bad, it's usually perceived to be good to have the full gamut of genes available in case environmental conditions change. This is true in the wild, but could also be true in captivity. What if a super fancy new kind of viv becomes popular and it runs a bit warmer? If you have bred out the genes that allow a species to process that heat, the morph could die out in captivity. This happened in the past with completely-enclosed vivariums being replaced with well-vented vivariums with lower average humidity.

The breeding for appearance thing is not true of many morphs of frogs. There is a reason that you only see sky blue azureus, chocolate leucs, super blue auratus (I think??), and maybe a few other artificial phenotypes out there. I think that reason is that many darts just don't vary all that much in appearance withing the species/morph. With my frogs, I am more concerned with getting unrelated parents (not always possible) than I am with getting the pretty ones to breed. One of my nominals is very like another in terms of appearance. Same with my quinquevittatus and mint terribilis. I don't hold back especially good-looking ones of any of these to breed further. So, I am not accidentally choosing an appearance that might have some bad genes coming along for the ride. I suspect that is true of many of the frogs in the hobby. I don't breed many Tincs, so maybe what I say doesn't hold true for them.

I think the point is that you don't know what traits are coming along with a given appearance and by selecting for the same appearance over and over, you are probably selecting away from some potentially-beneficial traits and pooling up potentially undesirable traits. If you avoid breeding for a specific appearance, you are probably preserving a larger pool of genes that is probably going to be better for the morph long-term. The problems may not appear for several generations, but they may still be there. Avoiding line breeding could push the problems to later generations (thought they will probably manifest eventually, regardless). That's how I see it, anyway.

Mark


----------

