# hawaii frog problem



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

i know that this may sound odd, but why doesnt the DNR from hawaii introduce chytrid to the state. they are having a problem with introduced tree frogs that are disrupting their ecosystem and are having little success in reducing the population. i know that most introductions of new species to help with another problem introduced species have been abject failures, such as introducing the mongoose into hawaii to control rats, but this would seem to be a very low risk introduction as there are no native amphibians in hawaii. am i missing something here?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Well the main issue would be spreading chytrid accidentally from the islands to areas that are importing products from there. Coffee, pineapples, plants, etc. could all contain stow a ways. A second issue is less likely but there is always the possibility this could result in a new strain of chytrid forming. Or creating frogs that were more resilient, making them even more difficult to manage.

Then there are issues like possible transfer to pets or zoo specimens, as well as the problems with convincing people it is the right choice (probably next to impossible). Especially among animal rights activists.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Just because there are no native amphibians in Hawaii doesn't mean that it cannot affect many *other* species.

Taking a pathogen that is causing huge issues in the rest of the world, and that is not completely understood, and purposely releasing it in to an area that doesn't have it - is truly one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of.

s


skanderson said:


> ... am i missing something here?


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

skanderson said:


> am i missing something here?


Only longitudinal studies on environmental impact and the fact that Chytrid is killed in temps above 82 degrees F. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chytridiomycosis). I'm not too sure of the climate in Hawaii, I assume it gets that warm, if not warmer. I do like the fact that you're thinking about it. That is an admirable trait!!


----------



## OrangeTyrant (May 12, 2011)

Chytrid has also been harbored by crayfish and hangs around in the environment after all of the frogs are gone, so in my mind, introducing a pandemic pathogen for control is a bad idea.


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is that many frogs are resistant to Chytrid, especially many tree frogs, so it would take some research to determine if the introduction would even be effective against the target species.


----------



## cschub13 (Apr 27, 2011)

What if they just harvested them at an unsustainable level for the pet trade, and sold them at a low price? They would be a good beginner species.

Just a thought.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

I'm with Schub and Scott on this.

1) Introducing a fungus? You are familar with r and K selection? Fungi, like bacteria, reproduce at very rapid rates. And like bacteria, then can cyst themselves in times of stress. Recipe for rapid mutation with unknowable consequences...

2) I am no PETA person, but sort of (I remain an omnivore). Somehow, it makes more sense to whack cats or goats than frogs; maybe their size blinds me to frog's potential for ecological damage. But I guess that in Australia, for example, they have little choice...

But in Hawaii, why the hell not just collect the frogs and chameleons and sell em to Petco, Petsmart (and, if the prices are low enough, me) Incidentally, same could be said for south Florida; I think sometimes when Glades Herp advertises WC Basiliscus or Ameiva, they catch themselves down the block.

Having said that, I've had it to here with Hawaii. Yeah, I know, deep blue water, deep blue state--all things I should like. But I can't have a #@^!* bearded dragon or corn snake? Before you guys start with the fragile ecosystem: But it's okay to have cats and grow pineapples?!? 

I know all about Boiga on Guam, but there has to be a rational compromise, no? I understand why some states ban certain animals and plants--I understand why Florida strongly recommends native and non-invasive alternatives to invasive plant species. Personally, I could see Florida eventually banning the big five constrictors. But for crissake, leave the smaller pythons and boas out of it. Some laws are necessary, others are overreaching, inconsistent and unfair.

Sorry to digress, but it infuriates me when I hear alarms about small herps, while no one wants to be serious about cats, rats, pigs, goats--or us.

I'll take:

2.1 coquis @ 3/$10
1.1 Jackson's @ 2/$50

Thanks


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

I think another main problem would be that the public would likely be afraid. Releasing a pathogen into the environment is a scary thing (technically no scarier than introducing any other novel life form....), and people usually don't like the idea of introducing more negative things.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

hypostatic said:


> I think another main problem would be that the public would likely be afraid. Releasing a pathogen into the environment is a scary thing (technically no scarier than introducing any other novel life form....), and people usually don't like the idea of introducing more negative things.


Fair point--but in this case, it is not without good reason. If there were unintended consequences, how would we rectify these?

The concept reminds me of releasing a disease organism or parasite to control certain agricultural pests (often invasives). But in this case it just seems too problematic. Dude has a point: Let's say it works--and in the process, creates a new "strain" of chytrid active at higher temperatures. You guarantee it will stay on Hawaii?

I'm with Schub on this--round em up, sell em to the pet trade. More controllable and more humane.


----------



## ICS523 (Mar 10, 2012)

Going on an invasive species witch hunt rarely goes well. Think of all the people who shower their lawns with herbicides just to kill a few dandelions. Also, how much damage are these tree frogs doing anyway? A lot of times introduced species turn out to be fairly harmless (think common carp).


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Hawaii does not allow frogs or chameleons to be exported off the islands, but has lax enough laws that day geckos can readily be found in shipments of live plants. Who or what is really being protected?

ICS523- why do you think carp are fairly harmless? I've seen quite a few ecosystems here in Arizona that have been forever altered by them.


----------



## Tuckinrim8 (Jul 26, 2007)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Hawaii does not allow frogs or chameleons to be exported off the islands, but has lax enough laws that day geckos can readily be found in shipments of live plants. Who or what is really being protected?
> 
> ICS523- why do you think carp are fairly harmless? I've seen quite a few ecosystems here in Arizona that have been forever altered by them.


They do. You just need to file the proper permit while on the island. I believe the limit is four of each, per person a year.

Other than a little delay on getting my permit (I got it the last day I was there) it was a very easy process and I had no issues bringing back four Jackson Chameleons.


----------



## ICS523 (Mar 10, 2012)

Carp wasn't the best example... That said in most lakes (Around these parts anyway) they really don't do any damage.
Here in Minnesota the main form of damage they do is damaging shallow lakes (Because they stir up a lot of sediment witch kills aquatic vegetation). That said, when farmers use better practices and less sediment ends up in the lake bed, the carp don't do too much damage.
guess it was kind of a local example because most (but not all) waterways here aren't affected by the presence of carp.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Tuckinrim8 said:


> They do. You just need to file the proper permit while on the island. I believe the limit is four of each, per person a year.
> 
> Other than a little delay on getting my permit (I got it the last day I was there) it was a very easy process and I had no issues bringing back four Jackson Chameleons.


Did you purchase the chameleons, or collect them yourself?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

If they aren't harmless they are reffered to as introduced, these are actually invasive, and damaging.

That's good that they let you take invasive species, but that is really bogus that there is a limit. They do that with a lot of things they shouldn't. Quit trying to capitalize on invasives and do some good...


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Introducing any non native species to control another non native species never goes well...


----------



## grantska (Apr 12, 2012)

The use of biological controls is an interesting and fast growing field. Its an easy, cost effective way to control invasive and undesirable exotic species. This being said it is actually very difficult to determine that a biocontrol agent is "safe". There is an incredible amount of time, research and money that goes into doing this and it often takes years to make it to the point where a natural resources agency can actually use it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing considering the many mistakes we have made in the past by being too hasty.
Although I am not that familiar with the impact these herps have in HI, generally the limited amount of funding natural resource management receives only allows the most pressing issues to be addressed. If people arnt being directly impacted they dont care and subsequently the government doesn't care. 
As many people already stated, chytrid is one of the nastiest of the nasty. It would be crazy to even think about spreading it anywhere!


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

grantska said:


> The use of biological controls is an interesting and fast growing field. Its an easy, cost effective way to control invasive and undesirable exotic species.


Name one that has worked with no unwanted/unforseen side effects.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or argumentative. Just curious, since the tone of your post made it seem as if you were familiar with this kind of thing


----------



## grantska (Apr 12, 2012)

Here are a few examples: Biocontrol Success Stories
Cornell is very progressive with this research.

Here is an example of one they are currently working on with the Emerald Ash Borer.
Biological Control | Emerald Ash Borer Information Network
http://www.emeraldashborer.info/documents/EAB_Biocontrol_Update_12172012.pdf

Since 2010 I have been conducting a monitoring study on galerucella beetles, which are very effectively limiting the growth and spread of purple loosestrife.


----------



## BrainBug (Aug 25, 2010)

Hey. I was born and raised on Oahu. I lived there for 19 years and we learned about the introduction of invasive species to control other invasive species in elementary school (mongoose to control rats, auratus to control mosquitos etc.) and how it has never the intended effect. I think introducting microorganisms that are pathogenic to control populations of a species is just asking for trouble. I have not heard to much about the frogs having a devistating effect on any endemic species but the worry is that they will eat the food source dry for the native birds. (The concerns involving damage to endemic populations by invasive species usually involve the native birds.) It seems like most of the concern from residents regarding the frogs is the huge amount of noise the Coqui frogs make at night.

It is not hard to get permits to take up to 4 non native animals off the islands (Jackson's, Auratus and Day Geckos are all permitted I believe) but I think the reason that they won't let people go wild with the export is because in the past people have introduced Jackson Chameleons to sites where they where not found prior to establish colonies where the collector can then go back without competition from other collectors to harvest for the pet trade therby making the problem worse.

Also Hawaii is a huge vaction destination for people from all over the world. Introducing a microorganism like that to such a place would almost certainly accelerate its global spread.

On a neat sidenote: Living in Hawaii for 19 years I had never seen a native honeycreeper, a day gecko or the auratus dart frogs. I moved off the island about 9 years ago and went back in April. My dads house, the house I grew up in, had TONS of gold dust day geckos. I hiked my old stomping grounds in Maunawili and saw multiple honey creepers. I even went to my friends new house in Nuuanu and found dart frogs and Jacksons in his backyard. Granted, the jacksons, geckos and frogs where all in diffirent locals then the birds but it seems like everything was doing well. Jackson Chameleons where $10 at my local pet store!


----------



## JRoe (Jan 24, 2012)

What needs to be dealt with in Hawaii is the Giant African Land Snails. Every evening after rain I would spot several huge snails. They cause far more damage than the frogs ever could.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

grantska said:


> Here are a few examples: Biocontrol Success Stories
> Cornell is very progressive with this research.
> 
> Here is an example of one they are currently working on with the Emerald Ash Borer.
> ...


First, let me just say that I am nowhere close to being any kind of expert in the area. Even after lots of alcohol 

I'm Australian, and as such, have a healthy dose of respect and/or skepticism when it comes to introducing ANY kind of species. Rabbits, cane toads, cats, starlings, pigeons, sparrows, water buffalo, horses, camels, ants, bees... The list goes on. And on. And on. 

If you don't mind explaining it, how exactly does the University ensure introducing a non-native species will not prove to be more harm than cure?

(Again, asking out of interest, not argument. Internet doesn't convey tones well. Need a disclaimer )


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Hawaii does not allow frogs or chameleons to be exported off the islands, but has lax enough laws that day geckos can readily be found in shipments of live plants. Who or what is really being protected?


I _think_ these rules are generally put in place to prevent other native species from being exported as well (such as illegally in the midst of all the legal exports). I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think that their view is that they'd rather not spend the time/resources looking for a needle in a haystack.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

jacobi said:


> If you don't mind explaining it, how exactly does the University ensure introducing a non-native species will not prove to be more harm than cure?


So generally, successful introduction of secondary non-native species as a mean of bio-control are rare. However, when they really ARE successful, it is because the secondary species are extremely (ideally necessarily) specific to the first problem species. One hypothetical example would be a parasitic wasp that predates/kills only one specific species -- since it only kills one specific species, it would be very unlikely that it would start killing another distantly related species from a non-native habitat (especially if their preferred prey is available and abundant).

Finding these specialists is uncommon. The cane toad, for example, is a disaster story because it is a generalist -- it doesn't discriminate between prey and ends up consuming everything in its path. To effectively control the cane toad in Australia, scientists would have to find something that specifically targets cane toads, and not other amphibians.

And a special note: these secondarily introduced species cannot solve the problem; they only help to keep the first species from growing their population even more out of control. Since the 2nd species is (ideally) dependent on the 1st, it cannot wipe out the 1st species without being wipe out itself. So the 2nd species will eventually find a balance with the 1st species, where they will both exist in the new habitat.


----------



## grantska (Apr 12, 2012)

Although I am involved with natural resource management I am by no means an expert on the topic either. I think its good that poeple raise questions about these kinds of topics. By discussing it and doing a some research we all learn something new. 


jacobi said:


> If you don't mind explaining it, how exactly does the University ensure introducing a non-native species will not prove to be more harm than cure?


It is not the Universities role to decide what species are introduced. Universities might work with governments to conduct research and employ management strategies. Ultimately its those trusty , non-scientist, law makers who decide what happens. 

As Hypostatic said, the species found to be "safe" for biocontrol use have an ecology that is exclusively tied to the first problem species. In depth ecology based research is followed by laboratory testing, followed by very controlled field testing. This is explained pretty well in the ash borer video in that first link I posted (about 6 mintues in if you want to skip the background info). http://www.emeraldashborer.info/biocontrol.cfm#sthash.ZYu3WZU5.M0Ugrjn6.dpbs For the work that im doing, the galerucella beetle is so highly specialized that it actually spends its entire life cycle in or on the purple loosestrife plant.


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

i just refound the thread i started after my return from kauai. thanks all the the well thought out responses. a couple quick points, one is that the tree frog i have not seen the tree frog i was talking about but have heard them, thousands of them, on maui. i saw a program about hawaii where they were discussing the negative ecological impacts of the frog. i dont think it is possible to harvest it to the point of elimination. they were catching them by the bagful and freezing them but not making a dent. no predators other than man. also i dont know how the temperature sensitivity of chytrid would kill it in hawaii but not in wisconsin. it gets warmer here for longer periods than on the islands. i am not considering an introduction by any means but other than the arguement of abetting the distribution around the world i didnt see any compelling reason to not at least investigate this as a control tool. having just spent the day cutting invasive buckthorn and honeysuckle from my woods i am just in a bit of an antiinvasives mood right now.


----------

