# E.mysterious legality



## deansie26

Been doing some research on E.mysterious as Ill be getting a few shortly and on the CITES official site there under appendix II CITES-listed species database which means trade on the species is allowed if certain conditions are met-for example if they can prove that the export will not be detrimental to wild populations of that species.

The other day a member here pointed that they have never been legally exported but they obviously have, maybe not for the pet trade originally.

This must be why Mark at dartfrog.co.uk can sell them I guess, I wonder where the originals came from-he is offering 2 bloodlines and I cant imagine him doing anything illegal-especially as there on his website for all to see.

any thoughts?


----------



## rcteem

Yes, they can be exported out of the country legally. However if you export one in legally you opened up the flood gate to allow all the smuggled ones to now become legal. This is why Mark and Sean have never exported them.



deansie26 said:


> Been doing some research on E.mysterious as Ill be getting a few shortly and on the CITES official site there under appendix II CITES-listed species database which means trade on the species is allowed if certain conditions are met-for example if they can prove that the export will not be detrimental to wild populations of that species.
> 
> The other day a member here pointed that they have never been legally exported but they obviously have, maybe not for the pet trade originally.
> 
> This must be why Mark at dartfrog.co.uk can sell them I guess, I wonder where the originals came from-he is offering 2 bloodlines and I cant imagine him doing anything illegal-especially as there on his website for all to see.
> 
> any thoughts?


----------



## deansie26

rcteem said:


> Yes, they can be exported out of the country legally. However if you export one in legally you opened up the flood gate to allow all the smuggled ones to now become legal. This is why Mark and Sean have never exported them.



Thanx for the reply, I understand that but then you could say the same for any species in similiar situations. Ive kept many poeciltheria tarantulas and was suprised to discover ones that are fairly common within the hobby are endangered in the wild.

So am I correct in saying it wouldn't be illegal to have mysterious in your collection in the US?

Who is Mark and Sean?


----------



## Ed

There has never been a legal export to the US.. They are not legal to possess in the USA (you can ask USF&W if you want confirmation).

Ed


----------



## deansie26

Ed said:


> There has never been a legal export to the US.. They are not legal to possess in the USA (you can ask USF&W if you want confirmation).
> 
> Ed


If they where captive bred in the uk then took to over to the US, would they not be legal to posses in the US as there captive bred?


----------



## Ed

deansie26 said:


> If they where captive bred in the uk then took to over to the US, would they not be legal to posses in the US as there captive bred?


There is some questions about thier actual legal export into Europe. As I understand it, they were imported on a CITES research permit that prohibited thier release to the pet trade and were somehow released to the pet trade. This is a violation of the CITES treaty and as such a violation of the Lacey Act and as such prohibits thier import to the US (and not all countries in the EU allow thier ownership because of this question). 
All because a frog is captive bred, does not mean that it is legal to import into the USA, and people need to keep in mind that even if USF&W allows a import to come into the country that it does not mean that those frogs are legal in the US. USF&W can review the paperwork and if a discrepency shows up at a later date, they are within thier right to confiscate, and/or prosecute the importer and anyone who then purchased the frogs. 

Ed


----------



## deansie26

Ed said:


> There is some questions about thier actual legal export into Europe. As I understand it, they were imported on a CITES research permit that prohibited thier release to the pet trade and were somehow released to the pet trade. This is a violation of the CITES treaty and as such a violation of the Lacey Act and as such prohibits thier import to the US (and not all countries in the EU allow thier ownership because of this question).
> All because a frog is captive bred, does not mean that it is legal to import into the USA, and people need to keep in mind that even if USF&W allows a import to come into the country that it does not mean that those frogs are legal in the US. USF&W can review the paperwork and if a discrepency shows up at a later date, they are within thier right to confiscate, and/or prosecute the importer and anyone who then purchased the frogs.
> 
> Ed


Interesting Ed thanx, you obviously know your stuff. Im only asking these questions as I dont know lol.

So being a forum member from the UK shall pic of the frogs and set up be allowed on the forum?

cheers

deansie


----------



## markpulawski

Pictures are legal....and encouraged i might add, however pictures of illegal frogs may cause some hysteria and rioting in the streets in this forum or create a 30+ page thread.


----------



## deansie26

markpulawski said:


> Pictures are legal....and encouraged i might add, however pictures of illegal frogs may cause some hysteria and rioting in the streets in this forum or create a 30+ page thread.


But are they illegal if there on sale in the uk by a respected distributer (talking uk only)

How can he sell them if they are?


----------



## markpulawski

Each country interprets and enforces the same laws differently, perhaps it is wink and look the other way enforcement. Mysteriousis is a high profile frog and definatley was targeted for restriction at least here in the US.


----------



## Afemoralis

The Peruvian government says none were ever legally exported. They consider them stolen.

Afemoralis


----------



## SmackoftheGods

markpulawski said:


> Pictures are legal....and encouraged i might add, however pictures of illegal frogs may cause some hysteria and rioting in the streets in this forum or create a 30+ page thread.


+1 I'd love to see pictures of the frogs and/or set up, but be prepared to take some serious crap for it.... I'm surprised this thread has yet to blow up yet


----------



## james67

OMG mystis! tisk tisk. JK! 

i was only attempting to warn you about their legality in the US, i didnt notice you were in the EU where seemingly anything goes.

+1 on the pics. 

james


----------



## skylsdale

What's with all this "+1" stuff everyone keeps posting? Feels like I'm reading an Eastbay catalog... AND1 ONLINE STORE


----------



## james67

ive always though its like saying "me too" 

james


----------



## jubjub47

james67 said:


> ive always though its like saying "me too"
> 
> james


+1 ......


----------



## Sabotage

Me too....+1 sounds like I'm RSVPing somewhere and saying I'm bringing a guest


----------



## tikifrog

So being that the Peruvian Government considers them stolen, and they are on the USF&W "watch list" I'm guessing there are no "farms" in operation for them.


----------



## rcteem

not that i am aware of, kevin might know more



tikifrog said:


> So being that the Peruvian Government considers them stolen, and they are on the USF&W "watch list" I'm guessing there are no "farms" in operation for them.


----------



## rcteem

Mark peppers and Sean Stewart



deansie26 said:


> Thanx for the reply, I understand that but then you could say the same for any species in similiar situations. Ive kept many poeciltheria tarantulas and was suprised to discover ones that are fairly common within the hobby are endangered in the wild.
> 
> So am I correct in saying it wouldn't be illegal to have mysterious in your collection in the US?
> 
> Who is Mark and Sean?


----------



## R1ch13

As far as I am aware, and I have discussed this topic a lot recently with other hobbyists here.

But all Mysteriosus that we can get a hold of anywhere in Europe are ALL of illegal origin.

As has been stated, there has never been any legal imports of the species, only smuggled specimens.

Mark at Dartfrog sells them yes, but that doesn't mean they are legal.

In my opinion what I feel it comes down to is your own personal morals.

You can arguably say they are captive bred specimens etc which many do, which to some extent makes them one of the more tolerable "high profile" frogs or you could just completely avoid the grey area that is Mysteriosus and wait until they are brought in legally.

Richie


----------



## fred

Hi James,

There are many different country's in the EU, and they have different rules; that people can keep illegal frogs in Germany without problems, doesn't mean this is allowed everywhere in the EU..

Protection of endangered species should be an international thing.

Hi Ritchie, 

You are correct; but the point is, you can see what happends if it's up to our personal morals....

There needs to be stronger and more proffesional control for imports, and a registration-system about what everyone is keeping, breeding, selling, etc.
It works very well in Holland, pity not many other country's take the smuggling-problem serious.
Should be an international agreement.

The E. mysteriosus is the 'lucky' one species that is never been legally imported; other species like lehmanni, histrionica, sylvatica, etc. had the bad luck to be once imported legal, long, long time ago, so that gives probably a reason to keep them coming and exterminate them from their habitats.


----------



## Chris Miller

rcteem said:


> not that i am aware of, kevin might know more


My understanding is that there is legal work being done down there (by a reconstituted INIBICO) to breed mysteriosus and captivus (as well as others) for import to the US and Europe. My hope if this is true, is that they bring them in at very low prices to kill any reward people who have illegal ones are hoping to get. Fat chance of that though...


----------



## sbreland

tikifrog said:


> So being that the Peruvian Government considers them stolen, and they are on the USF&W "watch list" I'm guessing there are no "farms" in operation for them.


Nobody is farming them legally, at least not currently. There was some talk at attempts to do it awhile ago (I think UE was talking about it but not sure... may have been INIBICO) but the political situation around these particular frogs kinda ended that and I don't think there is anything going on with them due to the refusal of the Peruvians to let them out. Breeding isn't the problem with them... they breed readily as evidenced by the number in Europe but jumping through the hoops to be able to farm and then export them legally is. I guess Peru is under the mind that if they never allow a legal export then they are all still illegal and once they say "OK" to even one export then it opens up the what's legal, what isn't debate... never export them out and there is no debate in their mind I guess.


----------



## sbreland

Fred,
Are mysteriosus consider legal in the perfect system that Holland runs or are they on the black list along with Histrionicus and Lehmanni??



fred said:


> Hi James,
> 
> There are many different country's in the EU, and they have different rules; that people can keep illegal frogs in Germany without problems, doesn't mean this is allowed everywhere in the EU..
> 
> Protection of endangered species should be an international thing.
> 
> Hi Ritchie,
> 
> You are correct; but the point is, you can see what happends if it's up to our personal morals....
> 
> There needs to be stronger and more proffesional control for imports, and a registration-system about what everyone is keeping, breeding, selling, etc.
> It works very well in Holland, pity not many other country's take the smuggling-problem serious.
> Should be an international agreement.
> 
> The E. mysteriosus is the 'lucky' one species that is never been legally imported; other species like lehmanni, histrionica, sylvatica, etc. had the bad luck to be once imported legal, long, long time ago, so that gives probably a reason to keep them coming and exterminate them from their habitats.


----------



## R1ch13

fred said:


> Hi Ritchie,
> 
> You are correct; but the point is, you can see what happends if it's up to our personal morals....
> 
> There needs to be stronger and more proffesional control for imports, and a registration-system about what everyone is keeping, breeding, selling, etc.
> It works very well in Holland, pity not many other country's take the smuggling-problem serious.
> Should be an international agreement.
> 
> The E. mysteriosus is the 'lucky' one species that is never been legally imported; other species like lehmanni, histrionica, sylvatica, etc. had the bad luck to be once imported legal, long, long time ago, so that gives probably a reason to keep them coming and exterminate them from their habitats.


Hey Fred.

I would first like to say how much I appreciate all the information you post here, and I value it very highly.

You are completely right there does need to be more control on imports, how and when this will come about, I do not know.

The thing with Mysteriosus is,that it is very easy to come by CB stock over here, because they apparently produce so well in captivity, unlike the other high profile frogs such as Histrionicus, Sylvaticus etc.

I think this factor, generates a lot of attention and most people look at the fact they produce so well in captivity and seem to think by doing so they are alleviating the pressure of smuggling on wild stocks.

In a way I guess having a healthy captive bred population has its benefits, one of which is that we do not need to take them from the wild in such huge quantities (although we can get them CB I'm sure WC's are still coming in all the time?)

But the down side is, what happens when they come in legally? The price tags are going to be fairly high which is completely understandable as alot of work and effort will have been put into their farming etc, but who will buy them when you can pick up the CB specimens that have been in the hobby for years for under £100.

I will admit, I was very interested in Mystis, and I know a couple of places where I could get CB offspring, but my moral radar is stopping me.

There are plenty of legal dart species in the hobby to tide you over until the ones you desire come in legally aswell.

Richie


----------



## deansie26

thanx for all the interesting information and views that have been posted, didn't catch what the +1 thing was all about but I take it it was showing agreement with a view/ stance.

Ill stick to the uk forum to post pics of mysterious


----------



## jubjub47

As is the case with many herps, the trend is to price cb animals at a higher price than wc animals thus making the wc animal more appealing to the keeper on a low budget. 

If we as a hobby could learn from this trend and price our cb stock equally or even less than wc stock we could slowly turn the tide on imports and import losses. 

This would be a great place to put that forth if these frogs are ever legally brought in, all cb stock should also be retro actively legalized and priced below the imports.


----------



## fred

Hi sbreland,

First, the system in Holland is not perfect, but it works a lot better then having no system at all..

Mysteriosus are under international agreement not legal, so also not in Holland.
They are very easy to get just a few hours over the border in Germany, but not many people wil take the risk to get caught with them one day, and loose all their frogs.

Hi Richie,

Thanks.

It is indeed a problem when these frogs wil be imported legal, the illegal ones wil be legalized with these papers. (same story with other illegal species)
That's why there should be a registration-system for all the frogs in the hobby.

It wil not completely cover everything, that's impossible, but for sure it wil make it a lot more difficult to keep illegal frogs.
Just enough to stop most hobbyists from buying them, when there is more difficulties and risks to it.

Also good to keep up the bloodlines, etc.; background information is always important for the future.


----------



## Ed

this was a species that was only formally described in 1982 (Myers, C.W. (1982). ''Spotted poison frogs: Descriptions of three new Dendrobates from western Amazonia, and resurrection of a lost species from ''Chiriqui''.'' American Museum Novitates, 2721, 1-23.), and was redescribed in 1990 (Schulte, R. (1990). ''Redescubrimiento y redefinicion de Dendrobates mysteriosus (Myers 1982) de la Cordillera del Condor.'' Boletin de Lima, 70, 57-68) and was not listed in CITES until 1987 (CITES-listed species database).. so how unlikely would it be for it to be issued a research export permit as a different species (such as being part of the D. quinquevittatus group during the period of 1982 through 1990 or so..) given that it was considered to basically be unknown until its rediscovery... 

This does not change the status of the legality in the pet trade (illegal).. 

Ed


----------



## BlueRidge

I just read an article on this that the govt of Peru says none have been exported legally with thier permission. They are cool looking frogs though... the article said that there are only like 200 frogs left and that they only populate one cliff face with broms and a certain tree on the land they are found. Is this true?


----------



## Ed

JaredJ said:


> I just read an article on this that the govt of Peru says none have been exported legally with thier permission. They are cool looking frogs though... the article said that there are only like 200 frogs left and that they only populate one cliff face with broms and a certain tree on the land they are found. Is this true?


Yes, as D. mysteriosus.. see my comment above. 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

JaredJ said:


> the article said that there are only like 200 frogs left and that they only populate one cliff face with broms and a certain tree on the land they are found. Is this true?


Dendrobates.org - Excidobates mysteriosus


----------



## james67

Excidobates mysteriosus (Marañón Poison Frog)

ron, they also talk about them here http://www.dendrobates.org/smuggling.html


"Excidobates mysteriosus - There have been many CITES papers issued for transfer of this species within Europe; however, to our knowledge, no CITES papers have ever been issued for specimens leaving Peru, making all individuals in captivity currently highly suspect. This frog is severely endangered in the wild, purchasing illegal D. mysteriosuscompromises projects dedicated to its conservation."

james


----------



## Peter Keane

This also happened with Vanzos.. From what I remember, a shipment was confiscated and all were offered to a European frogger on the condition that they not be distributed into the hobby. Until recently, these were not legally exported from Peru. But they were in distribution for many years prior. (not from that European frogger, to my knowledge). Smuggled frogs demand a high price and then demands more demand which can devastate a population. If they can farm these frogs and get them legally into the hobby, I believe that would reduce the strain on the wild populations and even offer $$ going back to help preserve what's there. From what I hear and see, they breed very well in captivitiy and will establish in the hobby in a short period of time. Whether the mysteriosus are legal in Europe, I tend to think not, based on the remarks out of Peru. But the smuggled frogs are here and the bottom line is to ease the illegal collection of wild-caught specimens and that is done through farming. True environmentally sound farming, not some "so-called" pumilio farms. There is a huge debate on this issue with all of the dendrobatids. My opinion is to farm them and give back to the land and communities to protect such species in danger. 

Peter Keane
JungleWorld


----------



## Peter Keane

Ed said:


> this was a species that was only formally described in 1982 (Myers, C.W. (1982). ''Spotted poison frogs: Descriptions of three new Dendrobates from western Amazonia, and resurrection of a lost species from ''Chiriqui''.'' American Museum Novitates, 2721, 1-23.), and was redescribed in 1990 (Schulte, R. (1990). ''Redescubrimiento y redefinicion de Dendrobates mysteriosus (Myers 1982) de la Cordillera del Condor.'' Boletin de Lima, 70, 57-68) and was not listed in CITES until 1987 (CITES-listed species database).. so how unlikely would it be for it to be issued a research export permit as a different species (such as being part of the D. quinquevittatus group during the period of 1982 through 1990 or so..) given that it was considered to basically be unknown until its rediscovery...
> 
> This does not change the status of the legality in the pet trade (illegal)..
> 
> Ed


Ed, 

You are sooo right.. I remember, back in those days, EVERYTHING was placed under the quinquevitattus groupings.. imitators, vents, etc.. One did not know what they were being shipped from a dealer back then without pictures. I received vents from a California dealer, John Uhern and later in the month I was expecting the same specie from an ISSD member and had gotten something entirely different. 

Peter


----------



## BlueRidge

Peter Keane said:


> But the smuggled frogs are here and the bottom line is to ease the illegal collection of wild-caught specimens and that is done through farming.
> Peter Keane
> JungleWorld


I agree. If there are frogs already in the UK, then why not just let those be bred for the hobbyists and maybe the successful hobbyists can give some back to Peru to help repopulate. I remember the egg feeders being near impossible to breed, but now they are not. Same with these. 

I hate politics! Poor frogs


----------



## james67

JaredJ said:


> I agree. If there are frogs already in the UK, then why not just let those be bred for the hobbyists and maybe the successful hobbyists can give some back to Peru to help repopulate. I remember the egg feeders being near impossible to breed, but now they are not. Same with these.
> 
> I hate politics! Poor frogs


well that brings up an entirely different issue.

no frog (to my knowledge) within the "hobby" meets the requirements for re-introduction. there are many many threads which discuss this at length.

peru has made it clear that they dont want these frogs to be removed nor did they ever approve of their export. so they are unlikely to allow this sort of thing.

the issue with just letting them be brought in legally is laundering. any animal of illegal origin, will upon 'legalization' be laundered as will any frogs smuggled in the future.

again there is a TON of reading out there about this. it isnt just black and white
james


----------



## Web Wheeler

One has to wonder what the rationale would be for not allowing any frogs to be legally exported, and when the rare occurrence of a legal export does happen, why there would be prohibitions against any animals being released into the pet industry?

Might it be because there may be untold fortunes to be made off some astounding new discovery by the biomedical industry?



> Phyllomedusa bicolor synthesises an arsenal of chemicals capable of knocking out Pete Docherty, which are secreted in a milky fluid to protect the frog from snakes. These include a long list of peptides such as dermorphin - a painkiller over 30 times stronger than morphine at the cerebral level but bioactive and therefore non-addictive.
> 
> The local Matses Indians have long used the giant monkey frog’s sweat in various rituals and cures. Now pharmaceutical companies have cottoned on and are investigating the use of these peptides as treatments for a range of illnesses from Alzheimer's to brain cancer.


E.mysterious conservation-based arguments don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. If they're easy to breed in captivity, but extremely endangered in the wild, why would any sector, public or private, not be encouraged to breed them by the thousands? My guess is that when E.mysterious are completely extinct in the wild, Peru will still be insisting that all captive E.mysterious belong to them, even though, at that point, any conservation argument would be moot. Why would Peru will still be insisting that all E.mysterious belong to them? To protect its biomedical industry. That's why.

The above is just my opinion, and I will not debate it. However, I wonder if anyone else feels this way?

P.S. I used the example in the quote above because it already an established scientific fact. A similar scenario could happen in the future with E.mysterious.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> One has to wonder what the rationale would be for not allowing any frogs to be legally exported, and when the rare occurrence of a legal export does happen, why there would be prohibitions against any animals being released into the pet industry?
> 
> Might it be because there may be untold fortunes to be made off some astounding new discovery by the biomedical industry?


Look at the entire legal battle around epidobatine.. it will answer the question for you. 





Web Wheeler said:


> E.mysterious conservation-based arguments don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. If they're easy to breed in captivity, but extremely endangered in the wild, why would any sector, public or private, not be encouraged to breed them by the thousands? My guess is that when E.mysterious are completely extinct in the wild, Peru will still be insisting that all captive E.mysterious belong to them, even though, at that point, any conservation argument would be moot. Why would Peru will still be insisting that all E.mysterious belong to them? To protect its biomedical industry. That's why.
> 
> The above is just my opinion, and I will not debate it. However, I wonder if anyone else feels this way?
> 
> P.S. I used the example in the quote above because it already an established scientific fact. A similar scenario could happen in the future with E.mysterious.


The reason they are so threatened is because they inhabit a extremely small section of habitat. As I've mentioned before even breeding dendrobatids by the thousands has not reduced demand or export into the pet trade (see the CITES exports of auratus for a direct example). 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

Web Wheeler said:


> Might it be because there may be untold fortunes to be made off some astounding new discovery by the biomedical industry?


Possibly...and that would be a valid concern, especially since the U.S. already gave itself a black eye with the whole _E. anthonyi_ debacle with Ecuador. It would make perfect sense that other countries with similar possible resources would be trying to play it safe and conserve what they consider to be national treasures and/or natural resources.



> E.mysterious conservation-based arguments don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. If they're easy to breed in captivity, but extremely endangered in the wild, why would any sector, public or private, not be encouraged to breed them by the thousands?


Why...so they can be released into cow pastures? They aren't endangered because they can't figure out how to breed (a la pandas in China), but because their habitat has been destroyed and convered into something else.



> My guess is that when E.mysterious are completely extinct in the wild, Peru will still be insisting that all captive E.mysterious belong to them, even though, at that point, any conservation argument would be moot. Why would Peru will still be insisting that all E.mysterious belong to them? To protect its biomedical industry. That's why.


Again, given my statement above...is that really wrong? Is it any different than the Ecuador situation? People unlawfully removed frogs from the country of origin and began breeding and selling them for their own profit, and nothing goes back to the country from which they were first stolen. Putting aside the whole illegality issue of stealing/smuggling frogs, I think it's perfectly legitimate for the host country (in this case Peru) to be upset about that.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> The reason they are so threatened is because they inhabit a extremely small section of habitat. As I've mentioned before even breeding dendrobatids by the thousands has not reduced demand or export into the pet trade (see the CITES exports of auratus for a direct example).


You're right, legalizing E.mysterious would do nothing to reduce demand for the frog, but I believe that smuggled WC E.mysterious would not be able to compete in price with CB E.mysterious, thus reducing the demand for the former.

Regarding the above quote, I also believe that if the quantity of CB D. auratus were to exceed the combined total of today's CB D. auratus plus whatever quantity are imported from the wild, the quantity of imported WC D. auratus in the future would be greatly reduced.


----------



## skylsdale

It's not simply about number of animals imported--if people were willing to sell their CB frogs for close to the equivalen price for WC, it would also help.

As far as mysteriosus, I doubt WC prices would be much different from CB prices: from what I understand these frogs breed like rabbits. I think it would be similar to E. anthonyi and similar species of high fecundity. If it is, then it's quite likely that before too long you would have $30-40 mysteriousus available.


----------



## Web Wheeler

skylsdale said:


> As far as mysteriosus, I doubt WC prices would be much different from CB prices: from what I understand these frogs breed like rabbits. I think it would be similar to E. anthonyi and similar species of high fecundity. If it is, then it's quite likely that before too long you would have $30-40 mysteriousus available.


Exactly! I don't think a smuggled WC E.mysterious would be able to compete in the $30-$40 dollar range.


----------



## Web Wheeler

skylsdale said:


> It's not simply about number of animals imported--if people were willing to sell their CB frogs for close to the equivalen price for WC, it would also help.


When I last imported WC D. tinctorius from Strictly, which was back in '96, I paid $50 each.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> You're right, legalizing E.mysterious would do nothing to reduce demand for the frog, but I believe that smuggled WC E.mysterious would not be able to compete in price with CB E.mysterious, thus reducing the demand for the former.
> 
> Regarding the above quote, I also believe that if the quantity of CB D. auratus were to exceed the combined total of today's CB D. auratus plus whatever quantity are imported from the wild, the quantity of imported WC D. auratus in the future would be greatly reduced.


Auratus has been captive bred in the US since the 1980s yet auratus has remained one of the most frequently imported dendrobatids with import running into the thousands... 

How do you intend to encourage production in sufficient numbers to alleviate demand for wild caught animals given that it has been cb for over 3 decades... 

How many species of amphibians have been captive bred in sufficient numbers that demand for further wild caught animals has been greatly reduced? 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> Exactly! I don't think a smuggled WC E.mysterious would be able to compete in the $30-$40 dollar range.


When considering auratus.. this does not appear to be the historical case..... 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> When considering auratus.. this does not appear to be the historical case.....
> 
> Ed


I don't see any comparison between a critically endangered frog and D. auratus.


----------



## ChrisK

Web Wheeler said:


> I don't see any comparison between a critically endangered frog and D. auratus.


Auratus reproduce great in captivity and CB ones are cheap, but they're still the most smuggled frog.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> Auratus has been captive bred in the US since the 1980s yet auratus has remained one of the most frequently imported dendrobatids with import running into the thousands...
> 
> How do you intend to encourage production in sufficient numbers to alleviate demand for wild caught animals given that it has been cb for over 3 decades...


Good questions, but not relevant to my premise.



Ed said:


> How many species of amphibians have been captive bred in sufficient numbers that demand for further wild caught animals has been greatly reduced?


Bullfrogs?


----------



## Web Wheeler

ChrisK said:


> Auratus reproduce great in captivity and CB ones are cheap, but they're still the most smuggled frog.


That's because they're plentiful and easy to get in the wild. Not so with E.mysterious.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> Good questions, but not relevant to my premise.


How is it not relevent given it is a productive species, easily bred, and given the large imports in relatively high demand? 

Again, how would you encourage production in sufficient numbers to reduce denand for wild caught animals? 





Web Wheeler said:


> Bull Frogs?


On what premise are you basing the idea that demand for wild caught bull frogs is reduced? They are treated as a game species in thier native range with bag limits and closed seasons.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> That's because they're plentiful and easy to get in the wild. Not so with E.mysterious.


And if one cannot produce enough animals from a easily bred species to reduce demand for a plentiful species how do you expect to reduce demand for a rare species? How are you getting around the arguement that "new" blood is required?? 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> I don't see any comparison between a critically endangered frog and D. auratus.


As a model it is an apt comparision.. if history has shown that cb breeding cannot reduce demand for a easily bred common species on what evidence are you basing the premise that an demand for an endangered species is going to be reduced through captive breeding? 

There are multiple examples of how this hasn't worked... look at red eye treefrogs.. they are still imported in large numbers even though this prolific species is bred in large numbers in captivity.. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> How is it not relevent given it is a productive species, easily bred, and given the large imports in relatively high demand?
> 
> Again, how would you encourage production in sufficient numbers to reduce denand for wild caught animals?


Perhaps you don't understand my premis, which was that if it were done the demand for WC D. auratus would be greatly reduced.



Ed said:


> On what premise are you basing the idea that demand for wild caught bull frogs is reduced? They are treated as a game species in thier native range with bag limits and closed seasons..


Well, this is getting way off topic from the OP. I don't think China has a hunting season on Bullfrogs, or any other countries that breed them for food. Hunting Bullfrogs in the U.S. is mostly done for sport. And the number of Bullfrogs taken in sport is far far far less than those raised for food.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> As a model it is an apt comparision.. if history has shown that cb breeding cannot reduce demand for a easily bred common species on what evidence are you basing the premise that an demand for an endangered species is going to be reduced through captive breeding?
> 
> There are multiple examples of how this hasn't worked... look at red eye treefrogs.. they are still imported in large numbers even though this prolific species is bred in large numbers in captivity..
> 
> Ed


As a counter example, look at Ball Pythons.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> As a counter example, look at Ball Pythons.


I was wondering if you would mention ball pythons... if cb is really reducing demand, can you explain why 1,914,530 were exported from Africa between 2000 and Jan of 2010.. The numbers actually seem to either be slowly increasing or holding the same over the last 5-10 years (with a jump from prior years) with most of those animals coming out of three or four countries. These are not true cb animals but "ranched" where the eggs or gravid females are collected.. which if it hasn't already will seriously impact recruitment for this species... So given the huge volume of what are effectively wc animals that are being exported on what premise are you basing the argument that cb ball pythons are really reducing demand for wc animals? (-particularly since it is only a matter of time before the populations begin to collapse from insufficient recrutiment). 



Web Wheeler said:


> Perhaps you don't understand my premis, which was that if it were done the demand for WC D. auratus would be greatly reduced.


No, I totally understand your hypothesis.. I am simply pointing out that history does not support it. The demand for wc auratus has not decreased despite 30 years of captive breeding including cycles where the frog became so popular that it was cheaper than wild caught imports... that is the history of the problem. I brought up red eye treefrogs as that species has larger clutches of offspring and despite large amounts of captive breedings, wild caught animals are still routinely imported in huge numbers (to the point, that the whole genus is ending up on CITES due to concern about over exploitation). 



Web Wheeler said:


> Well, this is getting way off topic from the OP. I don't think China has a hunting season on Bullfrogs, or any other countries that breed them for food. Hunting Bullfrogs in the U.S. is mostly done for sport. And the number of Bullfrogs taken in sport is far far far less than those raised for food.


No, they don't have a hunting season for bullfrogs but I mentioned it as they had to be regulated to prevent overharvesting for the food trade. The USA imports a huge number of frogs legs and the supply of bullfrogs produced in the USA cannot keep up with the demand so other species are substituted for it (species like Hoplobatrachus tigerinus)... the US is actually the second largest importer of frog legs (France is first..) 

It really isn't off topic as the conversation was brought up that captive breeding would solve the problem. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

I've created a new thread for this topic: Can Captive Breeding Reduce Demand for WC?


----------



## jubjub47

Ed said:


> Auratus has been captive bred in the US since the 1980s yet auratus has remained one of the most frequently imported dendrobatids with import running into the thousands...
> 
> How do you intend to encourage production in sufficient numbers to alleviate demand for wild caught animals given that it has been cb for over 3 decades...
> 
> How many species of amphibians have been captive bred in sufficient numbers that demand for further wild caught animals has been greatly reduced?
> 
> Ed


Ed, I completely agree with you and understand your point. One thing that I think should be weighed into this example though is that auratus have many different populations/morphs and these imports are many times new to particular populations and such. It's hard to compare a species like this with one like mysteriousis based on that alone. I would suggest standard leucs might be a good example of a pretty sustained species that does a good job with little wc stock entering the hobby.


----------



## Chris Miller

The problem with getting CB frogs to meet the demand WC frogs meet is at least two fold.

First, nationally there aren't enough mass breeders of amphibians (to my knowlegde we don't have anyone like ORA working with frogs). Tree frogs could be factory produced in large enclosures in a warehouse with minimal effort and I'd even be willing to say that with the right setup larger darts can be mass produced too. 

However, until it becomes more work and money to obtain WC frogs instead of CB ones or the current WC consumer base demands CB frogs at their petstores (like with TR clowns) wholesalers won't care where they get their frogs from. This education piece is where TWI can play a role.

Secondly, on a local level, if hobbyists want to consider themselves 'conservation minded' then they will have to get over the idea of extra froglets being their 'babies' and see them as see them as a commodity just like the rest of the pet trade. It sounds harsh, but I would rather see 100 CB baby auratus die in a pet store than 1 wild one. This especially applies to everyone who doesn't care to recoup costs (not that anyone has to) on their froglets when they dump 20 on the market here on DB. If you don't care how much money you put into them, raise them up for 3-4 months and wholesale them to a pet store or a local reptile wholesaler for next to nothing. Make contacts at the local reptile show with a jobber- inject them into the market where they are really needed and short circuit the need for WC frogs. Will this solve the problem, no, but it is a step in the right direction and it does way more than selling your frogs on DB since you are actually displacing WC frogs in the market.

Until we address these issues, I kind of cringe at the idea of legally exported _mysteriosus_. Sure, they breed easily, and there is less of a demand for WC _mysteriosus_ than WC _aurautus_ and it is more difficult to smuggle WC _mysterious_ but I just can't bring myself to believe that legal _mysteriosus_ in captivity will be good for the ones in the wild. It would only take 1-2 smuggling attempts, so that some advanced froggers could have fresh bloodlines, to destroy the wild population. It has proven to be practically impossible to differentiate legal and illegal frog.

I moved this post over here:http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/55512-can-captive-breeding-reduce-demand-wc.html#post480930

Mods can remove this posting if need be.


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> Ed, I completely agree with you and understand your point. One thing that I think should be weighed into this example though is that auratus have many different populations/morphs and these imports are many times new to particular populations and such. It's hard to compare a species like this with one like mysteriousis based on that alone. I would suggest standard leucs might be a good example of a pretty sustained species that does a good job with little wc stock entering the hobby.


Hi Tim,

I'll respond to this over in the other thread.. that was conviently linked in the other posts.. 

Ed


----------



## johnc

R1ch13 said:


> Mark at Dartfrog sells them yes, but that doesn't mean they are legal.


Keep in mind that the "Mark" in question (Marc Staniszewski - that's Marc with a C) was arrested, interrogated, and heavily fined by USFW trying to fly out of a US airport to the UK with a bunch of illegally collected and non-permitted for export amphibians concealed in his luggage and possibly on his person about 10 years ago.


----------



## Ed

johnc said:


> Keep in mind that the "Mark" in question (Marc Staniszewski - that's Marc with a C) was arrested, interrogated, and heavily fined by USFW trying to fly out of a US airport to the UK with a bunch of illegally collected and non-permitted for export amphibians concealed in his luggage and possibly on his person about 10 years ago.


I spoke with the USF&W agent that processed him and he did have animals hidden on his body. 

Ed


----------



## johnc

Ed said:


> I spoke with the USF&W agent that processed him and he did have animals hidden on his body.


Thanks Ed, I was going on vague memory.


----------



## Ed

Offtopic



johnc said:


> Thanks Ed, I was going on vague memory.


It was kind of funny at the time... Myself and a couple of coworkers were with about 6 USF&W agents waiting to deal with a major venomous species confiscation in Northern New Jersey (over 150 snakes)... and out of the blue one of them asked if anyone was familar with Marc. I mentioned that I had met him at IAD and the story unfolded.... 

Ed


----------



## stemcellular

jubjub47 said:


> As is the case with many herps, the trend is to price cb animals at a higher price than wc animals thus making the wc animal more appealing to the keeper on a low budget.
> 
> If we as a hobby could learn from this trend and price our cb stock equally or even less than wc stock we could slowly turn the tide on imports and import losses.
> 
> This would be a great place to put that forth if these frogs are ever legally brought in, all cb stock should also be retro actively legalized and priced below the imports.


I always sell my CB mantellas below the WC rate for this purpose.


----------



## Peter Keane

stemcellular said:


> I always sell my CB mantellas below the WC rate for this purpose.


excellent, this is where it may work.. offerings at below wild caught will, I believe, reduce the desire to smuggle frogs of that same specie in, knowing that the price they fetch is far less than what they will get. But with that said there will always be the desire to bring in new blood, as you see with D. tinctorius. Nowadays, most wild-blood tincs can fetch >$100 each. There is great debate regarding these issues. I am on the side of true, honest farming as this will impact the environment least and also give back to protect this specie, (if it is mirrored the way R. Schulte had forseen). For most in the hobby this is more than just a hobby it is obsession and how one fuels that obsession differs. Frogger 1 adds to his colection by purchasing frogs from a person like Mark Pepper, Frogger 2 wants to add to his collection by any means necessary, thereby hurting the efforts of guys like Mark Pepper in bringing in a frog legally. (see Jeraberos imitators vs. Varaderos imitators).

Most wild-caught auratus wind up in pet stores for retail sale and unfortunately they are considered, abundant, disposable frogs. Most pet shops I visit barely know how to feed them. I see them in tanks and they are offered half grown crickets. The shop obviously does not have the knowledge to offer a new pet owner as to proper care and what to feed. I wind up buying them and keeping them or giving them away to young students I lecture. I also lecture the shop owner. Some exporters that were offering pumilio would not allow a pumilio shipment unless they purchased X amount of auratus also. Auratus are treated like garbage and I for one appreciate them and I think everyone on this board also feels the same about auratus. Easy to purchase, cheap, easy to keep, easy to breed. 

I don't know where that brings me.. I must have been all over on this.. sorry bout that.. I guess what I am saying is smuggled frogs are more valuable as opposed to captive bred due to their near impossibility to obtain, leaving the price very high, therefore increasing the demand. As is, frogs will continue to be smuggled, I offer only one option to a fix. I think it would be so muich easier to decipher which frogs are legal exports and which were not previously. But that may be just a dream... 

Peter Keane
JungleWorld


----------



## BlueRidge

Ed said:


> I spoke with the USF&W agent that processed him and he did have animals hidden on his body.
> 
> Ed


OMG! did he really plan for them to survive? What a d*ck!


----------



## skylsdale

JaredJ said:


> OMG! did he really plan for them to survive? What a d*ck!


I doubt he had them directly duct-taped to his thighs...they were most likely in film canisters and the like, and then fastened to his body.


----------



## bronz

What was the outcome for him?


----------



## R1ch13

This is all news to me...

Pisses me off that Ive bought tank building supplies from him in the past.

Cant say I' shocked though.

Richie


----------



## stemcellular

Peter Keane said:


> excellent, this is where it may work.. offerings at below wild caught will, I believe, reduce the desire to smuggle frogs of that same specie in, knowing that the price they fetch is far less than what they will get. But with that said there will always be the desire to bring in new blood, as you see with D. tinctorius. Nowadays, most wild-blood tincs can fetch >$100 each. There is great debate regarding these issues. I am on the side of true, honest farming as this will impact the environment least and also give back to protect this specie, (if it is mirrored the way R. Schulte had forseen). For most in the hobby this is more than just a hobby it is obsession and how one fuels that obsession differs. Frogger 1 adds to his colection by purchasing frogs from a person like Mark Pepper, Frogger 2 wants to add to his collection by any means necessary, thereby hurting the efforts of guys like Mark Pepper in bringing in a frog legally. (see Jeraberos imitators vs. Varaderos imitators).
> 
> Most wild-caught auratus wind up in pet stores for retail sale and unfortunately they are considered, abundant, disposable frogs. Most pet shops I visit barely know how to feed them. I see them in tanks and they are offered half grown crickets. The shop obviously does not have the knowledge to offer a new pet owner as to proper care and what to feed. I wind up buying them and keeping them or giving them away to young students I lecture. I also lecture the shop owner. Some exporters that were offering pumilio would not allow a pumilio shipment unless they purchased X amount of auratus also. Auratus are treated like garbage and I for one appreciate them and I think everyone on this board also feels the same about auratus. Easy to purchase, cheap, easy to keep, easy to breed.
> 
> I don't know where that brings me.. I must have been all over on this.. sorry bout that.. I guess what I am saying is smuggled frogs are more valuable as opposed to captive bred due to their near impossibility to obtain, leaving the price very high, therefore increasing the demand. As is, frogs will continue to be smuggled, I offer only one option to a fix. I think it would be so muich easier to decipher which frogs are legal exports and which were not previously. But that may be just a dream...
> 
> Peter Keane
> JungleWorld


Well said, Peter.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> I brought up red eye treefrogs as that species has larger clutches of offspring and despite large amounts of captive breedings, wild caught animals are still routinely imported in huge numbers (to the point, that the whole genus is ending up on CITES due to concern about over exploitation).


National Geographic says nothing of over exploitation, but they do say:



> Red-eyed tree frogs are not endangered. But their habitat is shrinking at an alarming rate, and their highly recognizable image is often used to promote the cause of saving the world's rain forests.
> 
> Source: Red-Eyed Tree Frog


Once again, it is habitat destruction, rather than the pet trade, that is responsible for the decline of our world's biodiversity.


----------



## skylsdale

Web Wheeler said:


> Once again, it is habitat destruction, rather than the pet trade, that is responsible for the decline of our world's biodiversity.


I don't think you can confidently say it's completey either/or. Massive amounts of habitat destruction may deal the biggest blow, but it doesn't help when those dwindling/remaining animals are then overcollected.

There isn't just ONE single cause, but various things having various degrees of effect on the decline of biodiversity.


----------



## Web Wheeler

skylsdale said:


> I don't think you can confidently say it's completey either/or. Massive amounts of habitat destruction may deal the biggest blow, but it doesn't help when those dwindling/remaining animals are then overcollected.
> 
> There isn't just ONE single cause, but various things having various degrees of effect on the decline of biodiversity.


Putting some verifiable statistics behind what you're saying would carry a lot more weight. In my opinion, you're just blaming the easiest target (pet industry), but by far, not the largest one, and this just shows how biased you are.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> National Geographic says nothing of over exploitation, but they do say:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, it is habitat destruction, rather than the pet trade, that is responsible for the decline of our world's biodiversity.


Odd given that is it a species that has an ability to utilize even heavily logged and degraded habitats.. 
McCranie, J. R., Wilson, L. D., and Townsend, J. H. (2003). ''Agalychnis callidryas (Red-eyed Treefrog). Reproduction.'' Herpetological Review, 34(1), 43. 

Any reason why you are choosing National Geographic as the definitive source instead of say http://www.ssn.org/Meetings/cop/cop15/Factsheets/Tree_Frogs_EN.pdf ? Please note the comments on totals exported and smuggled... 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> Odd given that is it a species that has an ability to utilize even heavily logged and degraded habitats..
> McCranie, J. R., Wilson, L. D., and Townsend, J. H. (2003). ''Agalychnis callidryas (Red-eyed Treefrog). Reproduction.'' Herpetological Review, 34(1), 43.
> 
> Any reason why you are choosing National Geographic as the definitive source instead of say http://www.ssn.org/Meetings/cop/cop15/Factsheets/Tree_Frogs_EN.pdf ? Please note the comments on totals exported and smuggled...
> 
> Ed


Yep. I chose National Geographic as a trusted source of information for over 100 years. But, even your citation agrees with me:



> They are threatened by habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, climate change, pollution and disease. This situation is aggravated by substantial offtake of A. callidryas, A. moreletii and, to a lesser extent, of A. annae for the international pet trade.


Please especially note that collection of frogs for the pet trade was mentioned as an aggravating situation in a separate sentence from habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, climate change, pollution and disease.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> Yep. I chose National Geographic as a trusted source of information for over 100 years. But, even your citation agrees with me:


Actually, I was using it to point out that your trusted source of 100 years totally ignored the exploitation as you directly stated the following comment 



Web Wheeler said:


> National Geographic says nothing of over exploitation,


So it really doesn't agree with your point to the extent you claim in our discussion.... the citation I provided shows that there was concern over the significant illegal take as part of the reason it ended up in CITES II





Web Wheeler said:


> Please especially note that collection of frogs for the pet trade was mentioned as an aggravating situation in a separate sentence from habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, climate change, pollution and disease.


I have yet to argue that habitat loss is not a factor but the large take (both illegal and legal), the false claims of ranching etc are all supporting the argument that 
1) it was cited as a major concern for the listing (see the to illegal animals coming out of Guatamala)
2) it is an indication that cb is not offsetting the demand for wc red eye treefrogs which was the crux of the argument. 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

Web Wheeler said:


> Putting some verifiable statistics behind what you're saying would carry a lot more weight. In my opinion, you're just blaming the easiest target (pet industry), but by far, not the largest one, and this just shows how biased you are.


Your problem is that you are viewing this through "either/or" glasses...that there can only be ONE cause of all this, and in doing so, completely misread what I posted. I actually said that loss of habitat is most likely dealing the biggest blow, but there are other factors that work synergistically (such as collection for the pet trade) to deplete populations that are already weakened by habitat loss. Yet in your response you somehow twisted my comment (which pretty much agreed with yours) and somehow made it sound like I completely disagree with you. You are trying to make me sound like you: defending ONE cause of it all, and then saying that said cause isn't actually the cause, thus defeating my argument, etc. etc etc...when, ironically, that was never actually my point. 

You successfully burned your created straw man, but never succeeded in understanding the actual point at-hand.

This shows me you're not actually looking to constructively dialogue the issue...just argue and defend. So I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to come up with statistics and data knowing you are going to read them in such a tinted fashion.


----------



## Web Wheeler

skylsdale said:


> This shows me you're not actually looking to constructively dialogue the issue...just argue and defend. So I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to come up with statistics and data knowing you are going to read them in such a tinted fashion.


I do not post exclusively for your benefit, nor should you post exclusively for mine. But, if you want the readers here to be informed, one way of doing that is to provide the very statistics I asked for.


----------



## johnc

National Geographic a trusted scientific source? Until just a decade or two ago, they had a terrible reputation among biology professionals. They have a published record of pushing for $$$ over the welfare of the animals that they filmed. This has not been the case for years but it's difficult for me to consider them more than a pseudo-scientific organization.


----------



## sbreland

skylsdale said:


> Your problem is that you are viewing this through "either/or" glasses...that there can only be ONE cause of all this, and in doing so, completely misread what I posted.


That's the problem with this and every other conservation/smuggling/illegal frog/ etc arguement going on on this board... most people don't realize that ALL of these issues aren't black and white issues... there are so many shades of gray in between and that gray area of multiple meaning and truth is where 99.5% of these arguements lie, not in the black and white, yet people want to argue it in a an either/or black or white fashion.


----------



## fred

Hi sbreland;

I agree with you, it's not black-and-white, that's why in the country's of origin there should be worked on conservation/habitat-protection, and in all the other country's against the 'import' of the illegal frogs.


----------



## ChrisK

fred said:


> Hi sbreland;
> 
> I agree with you, it's not black-and-white, that's why in the country's of origin there should be worked on conservation/habitat-protection, and in all the other country's against the 'import' of the illegal frogs.


Uh, did someone steal fred's password?


----------



## sbreland

ChrisK said:


> Uh, did someone steal fred's password?


I was wondering the same thing... or something just like it


----------



## diver123

Now I am confused. Thought you had it all figured out FRED. One source for all the problems. Now its not black and white? WTF? Some one kill me now!

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...-would-you-buy-wc-lehmanni-23.html#post481758


----------



## fred

The English i'm writing is from a very simple kind, I allready excused myself for that....So it must not be very difficult to understand what i'm saying..

I see no difference in my opinion then before..offcourse there must be habitat-protection.
And there must be something done against the smuggling, otherwise the protection of the habitat wil not help much.

So something must be done by the hobbyists who are the cause for the smuggling..

Nothing changed in my statement, so what is all the commotion about?


----------



## ChrisK

Anyone here familiar with circle talk?


----------



## ChrisK

fred said:


> The English i'm writing is from a very simple kind, I allready excused myself for that....So it must not be very difficult to understand what i'm saying..
> 
> I see no difference in my opinion then before..offcourse there must be habitat-protection.
> And there must be something done against the smuggling, otherwise the protection of the habitat wil not help much.
> 
> So something must be done by the hobbyists who are the cause for the smuggling..
> 
> Nothing changed in my statement, so what is all the commotion about?


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... ----> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...nst-smuggling-protected-frogs.html#post475550


----------



## fred

Chris,

Thanks for putting the attention again on the thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/general-discussion/gen...tml#post475550

very thoughtful; the more people who read it, the better..pity though you don't get the point what it's all about yourself.

sbreland;

Isn't this talking about your ******** off topic a little bit?

Lets keep it friendly..


----------



## ChrisK

fred said:


> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for putting the attention again on the thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...ssion/general-discussion/gen...tml#post475550
> 
> very thoughtful; the more people who read it, the better..pity though you don't get the point what it's all about yourself.
> 
> sbreland;
> 
> Isn't this talking about your ******** off topic a little bit?
> 
> Lets keep it friendly..


Well you were continually claiming that habitat protection was not important but that blaming hobbyists/smugglers was important. 

Smuggling goes on with the most legal of frogs so it WILL NOT stop, it will slow down if the smugglers can't easily get to the frogs and/or the frogs are being sustainably farmed and sold.

And what point is it that you think I'm missing?


----------



## sbreland

fred said:


> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for putting the attention again on the thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/general-discussion/gen...tml#post475550
> 
> very thoughtful; the more people who read it, the better..pity though you don't get the point what it's all about yourself.
> 
> sbreland;
> 
> Isn't this talking about your ******* off topic a little bit?
> 
> Lets keep it friendly..


I'm going to assume the obvious that you have no idea what a ******* is so nevermind, and no, it's not me calling you a name.


----------



## pl259

The ******* reference was funny, possibly accurate, but not exactly PG. Let's keep it clean gents.


----------



## fred

I thought the **** off topic was funny too, and accurate..

Hi Chris;

Smuggling will not stop, i agree; but we can reduce it seriously if we as hobbyists are not buying these frogs..

The point that you are not getting is that WE HOBBYISTS CREATE A MARKET FOR THE SMUGGLERS.

No market - no use for smuggling.....offcourse there wil always be **** **** who wil buy these frogs and keep on creating a market for these activities, but if the frogger-society take a stand and don't accept this, it will seriously reduce the smuggling.

This can make the difference between extincion or survival of the species in the wild.

Something we are clearly respondsible for; we are the ones who want to keep these frogs in our home.

I'm not claiming that habitat protection is not important, on the contrary; i'm saying it is no use for the frogs only to protect a habitat when the frogs will be taken anyway..that will leave empty protected habitats behind in the end.

Also smuggling should not depend on the fact if frogs are being farmed or not; just hands off, no matter what.
These are the points you're missing.
There are no excuses for smuggling frogs or other animals.

This hobby is been growing world-wide, and still does; smuggling in the past (was not called smuggling in these days) was on much smaller scale then it is at this moment.

The demand for frogs is -i don't know how many times- bigger then it was in the eighties; it has become a serious problem.
Just to buy animals from wich you don't know the origin, doesn't fit in this time we live in anymore, we have to realize that.


----------



## Ed

fred said:


> The point that you are not getting is that WE HOBBYISTS CREATE A MARKET FOR THE SMUGGLERS.
> 
> No market - no use for smuggling.....offcourse there wil always be **** **** who wil buy these frogs and keep on creating a market for these activities, but if the frogger-society take a stand and don't accept this, it will seriously reduce the smuggling.



This is kind of like saying art patrons create a market for art thieves. It in not the mass of art patrons per se that create the market but only a select few of the patrons. The comments above implicate that the entire hobby is guilty simply because there is a hobby which is not the problem. 

Ed


----------



## fred

Just take your respondsibility, there are no excuses.


----------



## Ed

fred said:


> Just take your respondsibility, there are no excuses.


I have offered no excuses. I own no illegal frogs.. Again, blanket accusations is a problem and my analogy is apt. 

There is a substantial body of literature on this problem which indicates that simple education is not going to reduce or solve the demand without a number of other tactics being implemented at the same time. A wider review of the available literature and the required tactics would have been much more helpful than continued blanked condemnations of the hobby. 



With respect to this topic I suggest reviewing the following papers 

PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect 

and

http://www.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/PDFs/AAEModel.pdf


----------



## Baltimore Bryan

fred said:


> Smuggling will not stop, i agree; but we can reduce it seriously if we as hobbyists are not buying these frogs..
> 
> The point that you are not getting is that WE HOBBYISTS CREATE A MARKET FOR THE SMUGGLERS.


Theoretically this makes sense, but unfortunately is unlikely to change. Not everyone in the hobby creates demand for smuggled frogs. So I could say no to smuggled frogs if I am offered them, even everybody in the US hobby could, but that won't eliminate the problem at all. How many smuggled lehmanni are going to American hobbyists compared to hobbyists in Germany, other European countries, or Asian countries? I certainly do not support illegal smuggling, and I doubt very, very few (if any) other US hobbyists do, but it won't matter if some people in other countries create demand. We have absolutely no control over that.
Bryan


----------



## fred

A little reminder here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/54624-illegal-frogs-forum.html

These 'cb' bull's eyes are from the same source where the 'cb' redheads are coming from.

I'm sure many people over there allready got them offered by personal mails.
That's how it works.

By the way, here: Dart Den - View topic - SOLD the redheads where offered.

and here: Dart Den - View topic - Pumilio and Grannies ''blue jeans' and 'grannies'..


----------



## Dendro Dave

fred said:


> Just take your respondsibility, there are no excuses.


Comments like that aren't going to win you many friends, nor help your cause. 



fred said:


> WE HOBBYISTS CREATE A MARKET FOR THE SMUGGLERS.


WE (as in the majority of people in the hobby) aren't creating a market for Illegal frogs...because we aren't asking for them, and we aren't buying them. Its the 1% or so that are jerk offs that are doing that...not the other 99% of us. 

You are pretty much preaching to the choir here...and not even doing that in a very constructive way.

I think the biggest failure I've seen on our parts is not having more of a discussion about how comfortable we are with frogs imported from Europe with legal paper work who may have had questionable origins in the begininng. Its been discussed but I Haven't been around much the last year or so till the last few weeks. 

Maybe I just missed getting the consensus (or at least getting it right) but are we ok with frogs from Europe that have legal paper work? Or is this enough of a grey area that we have just left it to the individual and decided not to speak out against them even If we think its wrong? 

Sorry I'm still getting caught up  And Honestly I'm still on the fence about this one...plus I'm not aware of many of the details surrounding Ranitomeya vanzolinii and some of the other EU imports in the last couple years. So I'm not sure how I feel about it...yet.


----------



## thedude

Dendro Dave said:


> Maybe I just missed getting the consensus (or at least getting it right) but are we ok with frogs from Europe that have legal paper work? Or is this enough of a grey area that we have just left it to the individual and decided not to speak out against them even If we think its wrong?


i bought some EU import frogs....that was definitily the only time thats happening ;(

im not for it at all. if you think about some of the ranitomeya from peru, they came in from EU "legally" yet never left peru legally. so tell me how that works? theyre legal, but should they be? absolutely not.

about the vanzos. someone recently explained that they were originally smuggled to europe, confiscated, and then given to a hobbyist over there. and were then considered legal. BUT i recently read something (cant remember where) that said they were only legal for that hobbyist and couldnt be distributed. IF thats true, they would still be illegal since they obviously were distributed.


----------



## Philsuma

thedude said:


> i bought some EU import frogs....that was definitily the only time thats happening ;(
> 
> im not for it at all. if you think about some of the ranitomeya from peru, they came in from EU "legally" yet never left peru legally. so tell me how that works? theyre legal, but should they be? absolutely not.
> 
> about the vanzos. someone recently explained that they were originally smuggled to europe, confiscated, and then given to a hobbyist over there. and were then considered legal. BUT i recently read something (cant remember where) that said they were only legal for that hobbyist and couldnt be distributed. IF thats true, they would still be illegal since they obviously were distributed.


I feel the same way...but CB vanzo's DID make it here to the U.S Legally as per USF&W 2008-2009 and they were def froglets and not adults, if that matters.

Does that make that particular species the ultimate in "Wash jobs" ?


----------



## jubjub47

Philsuma said:


> I feel the same way...but CB vanzo's DID make it here to the U.S Legally as per USF&W 2008-2009 and they were def froglets and not adults, if that matters.
> 
> Does that make that particular species the ultimate in "Wash jobs" ?


That's also been the case with a few of the frogs in question though. That still doesn't clarify whether they were legally exported or smuggled origin animals. That's just a easy way to launder them as legal animals and USF&W is none the wiser.


----------



## Philsuma

jubjub47 said:


> That's also been the case with a few of the frogs in question though. That still doesn't clarify whether they were legally exported or smuggled origin animals. That's just a easy way to launder them as legal animals and USF&W is none the wiser.


Histos....

1. They WERE legally imported from Colombia to the U.S in the 1990's.
2. There were legally imported E.U Histo's to the U.S somewhat recently, albeit in small numbers.

Then they *all* are effectively washed right?

Bring them out of hiding then......they are all legal, right?


----------



## jubjub47

Philsuma said:


> Histos....
> 
> 1. They WERE legally imported from Colombia to the U.S in the 1990's.
> 2. There were legally imported E.U Histo's to the U.S somewhat recently, albeit in small numbers.
> 
> Then they *all* are effectively washed right?
> 
> Bring them out of hiding then......they are all legal, right?


Well, given that their legality is questionable and could be overturned at any time for up to 7 years I think I'd keep my mouth shut about owning them. With vanzolini though, they have recently been exported so laundering animals is pretty easy. I don't think the two examples compare in the least.


----------



## Philsuma

jubjub47 said:


> Well, given that their legality is questionable


How is it questionable? Some hobbyists can have legal 1990 animals, still alive and possibly even F3. That's really not a stretch, all things considered.



jubjub47 said:


> and could be overturned at any time for up to 7 years .


How are you arriving at 7 years? What "is" 7 years?


----------



## jubjub47

Philsuma said:


> How is it questionable? Some hobbyists can have legal 1990 animals, still alive and possibly even F3. That's really not a stretch, all things considered.
> 
> 
> 
> How are you arriving at 7 years? What "is" 7 years?


I'm not saying that the animals from the 90's aren't around. I'm saying it's easy for the keepers of smuggled animals to try and claim them as offspring from these animals.

The 7 years issue has been brought up a lot recently in these threads and it basically is that USF&W can reinvestigate animals that they have let in legally if new evidence turns up to prove them otherwise within 7 years of their import and within 7 years of their possession being transferred to another party. Under the law, if the frogs have transferred between 3 owners then they could technically be up for reversal for up to 21 years if I understand it correctly.


----------



## Ed

Philsuma said:


> Histos....
> 
> 1. They WERE legally imported from Colombia to the U.S in the 1990's.
> 2. There were legally imported E.U Histo's to the U.S somewhat recently, albeit in small numbers.
> 
> Then they *all* are effectively washed right?
> 
> Bring them out of hiding then......they are all legal, right?



Hi Phil,

If it can be demostrated that a locality with a stable pattern was not exported during that time frame, it can result in the frogs not being "washed". 

The time frame for being prosecuted under the Lacey Act is 5 years but each new transaction of the frogs starts a new clock. 


Ed


----------



## Ed

jubjub47 said:


> I'm not saying that the animals from the 90's aren't around. I'm saying it's easy for the keepers of smuggled animals to try and claim them as offspring from these animals.
> 
> The 7 years issue has been brought up a lot recently in these threads and it basically is that USF&W can reinvestigate animals that they have let in legally if new evidence turns up to prove them otherwise within 7 years of their import and within 7 years of their possession being transferred to another party. Under the law, if the frogs have transferred between 3 owners then they could technically be up for reversal for up to 21 years if I understand it correctly.


5 years... the statute of limitations is five... 

Ed


----------



## jubjub47

Ed said:


> 5 years... the statute of limitations is five...
> 
> Ed


Thanks Ed, I was trying to add a few years I guess.


----------



## swampfoxjjr

Can't you all take your worthless crusading somewhere else? Why not start another board where we can read all of your fingerpointing and pathetically self righteous word vomit until our eyes bleed?

In the span of a few months you have made this board, this HOBBY board almost impossible to stomach. Better yet, just shove off and go join USFW or become border patrol agents. I, and I am certain many many others, come here to get helpful tips on caring for the animals we DO have and see pictures of the great work others are doing to keep the animals in our care happy and healthy. I do not come here to read thread after thread about this same pointless topic.

Do you guys know what frogs I can save? As in right now, walk away from my computer, and actually save? The ones I own. Not the ones who have ALREADY been smuggled into the country, or Europe, or whose habitat is being slashed and burned to grow more cocaine. I suggest you all stop trying to be super men and go back to your day jobs as hobbyists. Just give it a rest.

Better yet, look on the brightside, when all the dart frogs in south and central america are extinct in the wild because the rainforest has been cleared for cattle pastures...at least there will be come in Europe and the good old USA. Yeah, I went there.


----------



## jubjub47

swampfoxjjr said:


> Can't you all take your worthless crusading somewhere else? Why not start another board where we can read all of your fingerpointing and pathetically self righteous word vomit until our eyes bleed?
> 
> In the span of a few months you have made this board, this HOBBY board almost impossible to stomach. Better yet, just shove off and go join USFW or become border patrol agents. I, and I am certain many many others, come here to get helpful tips on caring for the animals we DO have and see pictures of the great work others are doing to keep the animals in our care happy and healthy. I do not come here to read thread after thread about this same pointless topic.
> 
> Do you guys know what frogs I can save? As in right now, walk away from my computer, and actually save? The ones I own. Not the ones who have ALREADY been smuggled into the country, or Europe, or whose habitat is being slashed and burned to grow more cocaine. I suggest you all stop trying to be super men and go back to your day jobs as hobbyists. Just give it a rest.
> 
> Better yet, look on the brightside, when all the dart frogs in south and central america are extinct in the wild because the rainforest has been cleared for cattle pastures...at least there will be come in Europe and the good old USA. Yeah, I went there.


I suggest that before you turn a blind eye to important topics such as the legality of the animals you care for that you understand the history of them. While this is a great hobby, it's the actions of the smugglers that put a black eye to all of us and if we as a hobby don't unite to try and put a stop to it there is the very realistic possibility that the hobby we all enjoy so much could be shut down completely. If you don't have any interest in the topics like this then don't click and read them and go look at the build pics and stuff you want to see. I, like many others, wish to see this hobby grow and build into the future and without proper guidance and keeping within the law that will not happen. You can call it whatever you want, but please don't come in here a slam people for the topics that you're not interested in and/or are tired of reading. It's this very topic that could determine at some point whether you are breaking the law by even owning dart frogs some day.


----------



## edwardsatc

swampfoxjjr said:


> Can't you all take your worthless crusading somewhere else? Why not start another board where we can read all of your fingerpointing and pathetically self righteous word vomit until our eyes bleed?
> 
> In the span of a few months you have made this board, this HOBBY board almost impossible to stomach. Better yet, just shove off and go join USFW or become border patrol agents. I, and I am certain many many others, come here to get helpful tips on caring for the animals we DO have and see pictures of the great work others are doing to keep the animals in our care happy and healthy. I do not come here to read thread after thread about this same pointless topic.
> 
> Do you guys know what frogs I can save? As in right now, walk away from my computer, and actually save? The ones I own. Not the ones who have ALREADY been smuggled into the country, or Europe, or whose habitat is being slashed and burned to grow more cocaine. I suggest you all stop trying to be super men and go back to your day jobs as hobbyists. Just give it a rest.
> 
> Better yet, look on the brightside, when all the dart frogs in south and central america are extinct in the wild because the rainforest has been cleared for cattle pastures...at least there will be come in Europe and the good old USA. Yeah, I went there.


Easy solution - don't read these threads ... read the threads that interest you. You make it sound as if you're being forced to read these!

Some of us DO have interest in conservation .... Perhaps YOU should shove off and go elsewhere!


----------



## swampfoxjjr

Yeah, and when the "united" hobby decides the fate of us all with the world's first internet police force and puts every sponsor of this board out of business, what then? Will the hobby you love so much continue on with its birght future then?

Here is a news flash, the people who allegedly have the frogs in question don't read this board so what, again, is the point of all of this? Also, those who do are never, ever going to tell the crusaders' union about them.

Is it so difficult to just enjoy your animals and encourage others to do the same? Wait, I just had a brilliant idea!!

What is the legality of HYBRID captive bred Histrionicus morphs?? The best of both pointless topics. Discuss.


----------



## jubjub47

swampfoxjjr said:


> Yeah, and when the "united" hobby decides the fate of us all with the world's first internet police force and puts every sponsor of this board out of business, what then? Will the hobby you love so much continue on with its birght future then?
> 
> Here is a news flash, the people who allegedly have the frogs in question don't read this board so what, again, is the point of all of this? Also, those who do are never, ever going to tell the crusaders' union about them.
> 
> Is it so difficult to just enjoy your animals and encourage others to do the same? Wait, I just had a brilliant idea!!
> 
> What is the legality of HYBRID captive bred Histrionicus morphs?? The best of both pointless topics. Discuss.


Haha, I think you really are having a hard time understanding and/or just want to instigate. 

How do you come to the conclusion that vendors will be shut down by hobbyist trying to keep the hobby on the right side of the law? If a sponsor is dealing in illegal animals then maybe they've made their own bed. 

Many of the people that own animals being discussed do frequent these boards and do read these posts. Whether they want to speak out about their animals is their choice and I for one don't care if they speak out or not.

Conversations like this don't have to be aimed at any one person. Just by having the dialog on the board, new hobbyist that don't know better can read and learn some of the legalities of the hobby. What is the harm in that? Why do you want to censor what other hobbyist discuss? Like has already been mentioned, if you're not interested in the topic then take your bad attitude somewhere else.


----------



## Philsuma

Ed said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> If it can be demostrated that a locality with a *stable* pattern was not exported during that time frame, it can result in the frogs not being "washed".


THIS ^^^^ is what we need. Do all Histrionicus have a dorsal pattern that amounts to a "fingerprint" type identifyer? If so...

How and where can we find out what morphs have been legally imported.....i.e....red heads ect?


----------



## Ed

Philsuma said:


> THIS ^^^^ is what we need. Do all Histrionicus have a dorsal pattern that amounts to a "fingerprint" type identifyer? If so...
> 
> How and where can we find out what morphs have been legally imported.....i.e....red heads ect?


Hi Phil,

I would prefer to defer a response that question as I may not have a totally clear picture as to the stability of the patterns but from what I understand there are regional stabilities along the lines of some of the other dendrobatids.

Ed


----------



## swampfoxjjr

jubjub47 said:


> Haha, I think you really are having a hard time understanding and/or just want to instigate.
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that vendors will be shut down by hobbyist trying to keep the hobby on the right side of the law? If a sponsor is dealing in illegal animals then maybe they've made their own bed.


This really is getting tiresome. I assure you I have a greater understanding of the end results of posts like this and what they lead to. In my neck of the woods we are currently battling legislation that would ban the ownership of 9 snake species deemed to be injurious wildlife under the lacey act. Please note, for your understanding, these animals were LEGALLY imported. One of the primary pieces of research that key politicians are using to promote this legislation can be found here:

http://www.defenders.org/resources/...tion/broken_screens/broken_screens_report.pdf

I suggest you read the entire thing as it is quite informative on the subject but if you find that to be too arduous, at the very least, please visit Appendix B. When you have done so perhaps then YOU will understand what will happen to our sponsors and hobby if members of this board continue trying to be part time wildlife police. What will you do if the next legislation contains the names on Appendix B?


----------



## Philsuma

It's not tiresome to us....we want to understand something better.....try to work through something glaring in the hobby.

If it bothers you....unsubscribe.

The Florida "Dangerous snake" legislature is _miles_ away from anything dart frog hobby related in every single way, shape and form. to even suggest such an analogy is disappointing.


----------



## jubjub47

swampfoxjjr said:


> This really is getting tiresome. I assure you I have a greater understanding of the end results of posts like this and what they lead to. In my neck of the woods we are currently battling legislation that would ban the ownership of 9 snake species deemed to be injurious wildlife under the lacey act. Please note, for your understanding, these animals were LEGALLY imported. One of the primary pieces of research that key politicians are using to promote this legislation can be found here:
> 
> http://www.defenders.org/resources/...tion/broken_screens/broken_screens_report.pdf
> 
> I suggest you read the entire thing as it is quite informative on the subject but if you find that to be too arduous, at the very least, please visit Appendix B. When you have done so perhaps then YOU will understand what will happen to our sponsors and hobby if members of this board continue trying to be part time wildlife police. What will you do if the next legislation contains the names on Appendix B?


I'm informed on the injurious wildlife ban and what they are trying to accomplish with it. What the 9 snake species has to do with dart frog vendors is beyond me. While I'm sure you're tired of the snake ban, there are many people out there that are passionate about the subject and are trying very hard to be able to keep the animals they wish to keep. Who are you to tell them not to try and do something about it? Nobody on these boards is trying to be the frog police like you keep referring to people as. We're just trying to be informed about which animals to keep and which to stay away from. Why this bothers you is beyond me just as it's beyond me why you keep posting and reading about a topic you don't like. 

By the way, I recommend labeling all your animals you ship in accordance with the Lacey Act's rules as well. Does that make me the frog police or just a responsible hobbyist? Go play someplace else please.


----------



## swampfoxjjr

jubjub47 said:


> I'm informed on the injurious wildlife ban and what they are trying to accomplish with it. What the 9 snake species has to do with dart frog vendors is beyond me.


You cannot possibly be informed and then say something like that. If you bothered to read what I posted for you, you know what, forget it, I will just post it directly for you:

Genus - Species - Common name and annotation
NON-NATIVE AMPHIBIANS
Ambystoma mexicanum - Mexican salamander, - GRIS, amphib. disease, Molec. Ecol. 14:213-24
Atelopus varius - Harlequin toad, - amphib. disease, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95:9031-9036
Atelopus zeteki - Golden frog, - amphib. disease, www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science
Bombina variegate - Yellow-bellied toad, - GRIS
Dendrobates auratus -
Green and black dart-poison frog, - NAS Impact; and amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost.
Invest. 11:194-199
Dendrobates azureus - Blue dart frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnostic Invest. 11:194-199
Dendrobates tinctorius - Dyeing poison frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost. Invest. 11:194-199

Are the pieces of how this relates to our vendors starting to come together for you? Do you see super exotic, illegal species on that list? Do you think people coming to a hobby board and throwing out accusation of legality as it regards to animals are going to help us avoid this list leading to similar legislation as it did for the snakes? Injurious animals is the definition they want extended to EVERY species in this study by the department of the interior. To top it all off, they blame the pet trade first and foremost. How much clearer can I be?

Furthermore, do you think calling fish and wildlife on members of this board is drawing the attention you want to the issue of smuggling? If you don't, then you should know it is happening as we speak. My point in all of this is that these myriad threads on the same subject where anyone who chimes in with an actual stake in the game (ie they own or support ownership of frogs not deemed legal by a bunch of hobbyists) gets verbally assaulted. Yet, nobody here has stopped to think what will ACTUALLY come of this nonsense.



jubjub47 said:


> Go play someplace else please.


Spare me your platitudes and practice sound reading comprehension.

Still disappointed by the dissimilarities, Phil?


----------



## Philsuma

Those "Vet diagnosis".....I'm gonna assume is BD. Same old song and dance we have been discussing on several other threads.

As to dendrobatids becoming established in CONUS......not happening.

I guess they can use PR and HI as a potential *flag*, but the "invasive exotics - released dart frogs" rallying cry is gonna be very weak indeed....


----------



## Ed

swampfoxjjr said:


> Are the pieces of how this relates to our vendors starting to come together for you? Do you see super exotic, illegal species on that list? Do you think people coming to a hobby board and throwing out accusation of legality as it regards to animals are going to help us avoid this list leading to similar legislation as it did for the snakes? Injurious animals is the definition they want extended to EVERY species in this study by the department of the interior. To top it all off, they blame the pet trade first and foremost. How much clearer can I be?


Those are citations referencing Bd and the effects. It is simply citing references to support thier arguments. It does not mean anything near what you are interpreting it to mean. 



swampfoxjjr said:


> Furthermore, do you think calling fish and wildlife on members of this board is drawing the attention you want to the issue of smuggling? If you don't, then you should know it is happening as we speak. My point in all of this is that these myriad threads on the same subject where anyone who chimes in with an actual stake in the game (ie they own or support ownership of frogs not deemed legal by a bunch of hobbyists) gets verbally assaulted. Yet, nobody here has stopped to think what will ACTUALLY come of this nonsense.



If I understand your position, we should ignore all smuggling and do our best to hide it because if we don't then the frogs will be outlawed (even though since they were smuggled they and all of thier offspring would already be illegal under the current laws). So we should aid and abet smuggling if by no other method than by ignoring it? How does that help the hobby? 

Ed


----------



## edwardsatc

swampfoxjjr said:


> You cannot possibly be informed and then say something like that. If you bothered to read what I posted for you, you know what, forget it, I will just post it directly for you:
> 
> Genus - Species - Common name and annotation
> NON-NATIVE AMPHIBIANS
> Ambystoma mexicanum - Mexican salamander, - GRIS, amphib. disease, Molec. Ecol. 14:213-24
> Atelopus varius - Harlequin toad, - amphib. disease, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95:9031-9036
> Atelopus zeteki - Golden frog, - amphib. disease, www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science
> Bombina variegate - Yellow-bellied toad, - GRIS
> Dendrobates auratus -
> Green and black dart-poison frog, - NAS Impact; and amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost.
> Invest. 11:194-199
> Dendrobates azureus - Blue dart frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnostic Invest. 11:194-199
> Dendrobates tinctorius - Dyeing poison frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost. Invest. 11:194-199
> 
> Are the pieces of how this relates to our vendors starting to come together for you? Do you see super exotic, illegal species on that list? Do you think people coming to a hobby board and throwing out accusation of legality as it regards to animals are going to help us avoid this list leading to similar legislation as it did for the snakes? Injurious animals is the definition they want extended to EVERY species in this study by the department of the interior. To top it all off, they blame the pet trade first and foremost. How much clearer can I be?
> 
> Furthermore, do you think calling fish and wildlife on members of this board is drawing the attention you want to the issue of smuggling? If you don't, then you should know it is happening as we speak. My point in all of this is that these myriad threads on the same subject where anyone who chimes in with an actual stake in the game (ie they own or support ownership of frogs not deemed legal by a bunch of hobbyists) gets verbally assaulted. Yet, nobody here has stopped to think what will ACTUALLY come of this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your platitudes and practice sound reading comprehension.
> 
> Still disappointed by the dissimilarities, Phil?


Hmm, for a topic that you didn't seem to think was worthy of DB and should be "taken elsewhere", you sure seemed to have taken a sudden interest in it. Who is spewing the "pathetically self righteous word vomit" now?


----------



## sbreland

Ed said:


> If I understand your position, we should ignore all smuggling and do our best to hide it because if we don't then the frogs will be outlawed (even though since they were smuggled they and all of thier offspring would already be illegal under the current laws). So we should aid and abet smuggling if by no other method than by ignoring it? How does that help the hobby?
> 
> Ed


No, I think what he's trying to say is that these threads (or at least some of the people posting in them) do nothing but try to isolate, incriminate, intimidate, and persecute fellow hobbiest and will never accomplish their supposed intent (stopping smuggling) and I for one agree with that assessment.


----------



## Ed

sbreland said:


> No, I think what he's trying to say is that these threads (or at least some of the people posting in them) do nothing but try to isolate, incriminate, intimidate, and persecute fellow hobbiest and will never accomplish their supposed intent (stopping smuggling) and I for one agree with that assessment.


There are always going to be people who try to isolate, incriminate, intimidate etc.. his posts are an example of this as well (intimidation, and incrimination certainly play a part in the post). If people are allowed to do this without being challenged then that is something else.... 

Ed


----------



## jubjub47

swampfoxjjr said:


> You cannot possibly be informed and then say something like that. If you bothered to read what I posted for you, you know what, forget it, I will just post it directly for you:
> 
> Genus - Species - Common name and annotation
> NON-NATIVE AMPHIBIANS
> Ambystoma mexicanum - Mexican salamander, - GRIS, amphib. disease, Molec. Ecol. 14:213-24
> Atelopus varius - Harlequin toad, - amphib. disease, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95:9031-9036
> Atelopus zeteki - Golden frog, - amphib. disease, www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science
> Bombina variegate - Yellow-bellied toad, - GRIS
> Dendrobates auratus -
> Green and black dart-poison frog, - NAS Impact; and amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost.
> Invest. 11:194-199
> Dendrobates azureus - Blue dart frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnostic Invest. 11:194-199
> Dendrobates tinctorius - Dyeing poison frog, - amphib. disease, J. Vet. Diagnost. Invest. 11:194-199
> 
> Are the pieces of how this relates to our vendors starting to come together for you? Do you see super exotic, illegal species on that list? Do you think people coming to a hobby board and throwing out accusation of legality as it regards to animals are going to help us avoid this list leading to similar legislation as it did for the snakes? Injurious animals is the definition they want extended to EVERY species in this study by the department of the interior. To top it all off, they blame the pet trade first and foremost. How much clearer can I be?
> 
> Furthermore, do you think calling fish and wildlife on members of this board is drawing the attention you want to the issue of smuggling? If you don't, then you should know it is happening as we speak. My point in all of this is that these myriad threads on the same subject where anyone who chimes in with an actual stake in the game (ie they own or support ownership of frogs not deemed legal by a bunch of hobbyists) gets verbally assaulted. Yet, nobody here has stopped to think what will ACTUALLY come of this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your platitudes and practice sound reading comprehension.
> 
> Still disappointed by the dissimilarities, Phil?


The amphibian issues are in regards to BD. We've been discussing this topic on the board for some time. Again, this in no way harms vendors other than they may be required chytrid testing before shipping animals over state lines and a few other small odds and ends. These are not necessarily bad things if they are going to help to prevent the spread of BD. That is a discussion all in itself though. This issue is really unrelated to the snake issue in that the snake ARE an invasive species.


----------



## thedude

swampfoxjjr said:


> Can't you all take your worthless crusading somewhere else? Why not start another board where we can read all of your fingerpointing and pathetically self righteous word vomit until our eyes bleed?
> 
> In the span of a few months you have made this board, this HOBBY board almost impossible to stomach. Better yet, just shove off and go join USFW or become border patrol agents. I, and I am certain many many others, come here to get helpful tips on caring for the animals we DO have and see pictures of the great work others are doing to keep the animals in our care happy and healthy. I do not come here to read thread after thread about this same pointless topic.
> 
> Do you guys know what frogs I can save? As in right now, walk away from my computer, and actually save? The ones I own. Not the ones who have ALREADY been smuggled into the country, or Europe, or whose habitat is being slashed and burned to grow more cocaine. I suggest you all stop trying to be super men and go back to your day jobs as hobbyists. Just give it a rest.
> 
> Better yet, look on the brightside, when all the dart frogs in south and central america are extinct in the wild because the rainforest has been cleared for cattle pastures...at least there will be come in Europe and the good old USA. Yeah, I went there.



my god, are you serious? if you dont like it, DONT READ IT! your the worst kind of person. you dont want to do anything to help anyone so you go on the offense to anyone who does.

and if the snake problem is such a big deal to you, why are you telling us how dumb this is? you should be way to busy defending your right to own snakes than sitting at your computer telling a bunch of people what they are doing is useless. a lot of the people on here are involved in some form of science as their day job, so they would not only be interested in this, but probably love talking about it. i know i do.

so go do whatever your day job is and quit telling a bunch of people that conservation, and improving our hobby is useless. just dont come on the forum anymore in fact, you obviously cant be educated about the issues since you dont care. "yeah, i went there."


----------



## swampfoxjjr

thedude said:


> your the worst kind of person.


You guys win. I am off Dendorboard.


----------



## nepenthes

I've never posted before on issues of legality, but have been reading the threads with great interest....I believe that it is our responsibility to educate and advocate for reform and to keep our hobby clean....At the end of the day, we need to be as well educated and ready to talk about issues of conservation and legality as much as possible....what it comes down to for me is what is best for the frogs and not whether or not I need to own a certain rare and exotic species.


----------

