# A controversial topic. Let's have some fun!



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

I may be beating a dead horse with this one, and it is actually a spin-off of a recent topic. But heck, let's have some fun.

I personally am against the purchase of wild caught animals. A close friend of mine is not. Now, I think that some importation is needed in order to allow breeders the chance to create offspring for sale in the captive bred population. But the numbers that are coming in bother me. And the losses as well. It pains me that anyone with a large sum of money can purchase large lots of wild caught animals. Now don't get me wrong there are some people who import 20-30 at a time and do really good things with these frogs. They feed them, and treat them well. Some do not. And with no fault to those importing, some of their orders which they have the best intentions with, come in Dead On Arrival. *So I ask. Do we really need imported frogs at all?* Is there a market for wild caught D. auratus? I know countless people who breed these wonderful frogs. Why is there a demand for them? Yes, pumilio are slow breeders. But I honestly would rather have a healthy captive bred specimen, than a stressed out wild caught with a possible large parasite load and a 50:50 chance of making it. So I am here to have a _FRIENDLY_ argument. I am not here to point fingers and say person "X" is evil. I just want to have a mature, and hopefully fun discussion about the ethics of importation.
Ready?
GO!


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Well...without imports, we never would have had the frogs most of us are keeping now (obviously).
Without the recent imports, we most likely would never have a chance for CB's of some of the morphs we are getting now.
I kind of agree with you that so many are not needed, with the morphs that are already here, it might be just as well if we stopped importing them...but then again, if the animals are being produced...instead of caught...where is the harm done?
I agree...the amounts of auratus imports are kind of ridiculous...but if they are new morphs...I think we need to have some...but not thousands.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2005)

I think that, ideally, each importation would be done on a case by case basis. The consequences of each importation varies by species, and even by region in the same species.

I recently heard an argument that imports are OK because if we don't get them, then the slash-and-burners will. The individual also seemed to imply that keeping CITES frogs out of the hobbiest's reach is counterproductive for the same reason. 

In a better world (in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue) a group of well educated purists would swarm the next basin of rain forest to be destroyed and remove all of the species possible out of harm's way, and that's where our imports would come from.

Instead, whatever healthy forest remains is normally plunderded for its plants and animals because of the high yield rates.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*.*



> Well...without imports, we never would have had the frogs most of us are keeping now (obviously).


True enough Brian. But even you admit that we probably have reached our limit. Lydia makes an interesting point:


> I think that, ideally, each importation would be done on a case by case basis. The consequences of each importation varies by species, and even by region in the same species.


 I think that limits should be in place for wild caughts. 

Dave


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Does that happen on any scale...I mean, conservationists working "with" the "enemy"...If not, maybee that would be the way to go...(In a perfect world where people accept other people's ways of life, and deal with, and make the most of it)
I'd be willing to bet, when those giant forests come down, tons of interesting things show up that you'd never see otherwize...
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not condoning deforestation on any scale, but the reality is, that it is going to happen sooner or later...all we can do is try to make "later" as late as possible...hopefully long enough for some of the already trashed habitat to grow back.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Well, initially I did not want to contribute to this topic, as I feared that it would start an argument and people would go off telling me how my "mother's so fat that..." or some equivalent, but I have a lot to say on the issue.
First, don't take this the wrong way everybody, but I don't think that importing WC anything on the scales that we do it is not acceptable. Specifically regarding Dendrobatids, I think that we should not be importing any species in the numbers that we are actually importing and those that are imported should be distributed to experienced breeders who would then distribute OFFSPRING ONLY with documentation on genetics to hobbyist level individuals. Now I know, we all think we are experienced breeders who are going to save the rainforest by breeding as many dart frogs as possible or make a huge profit breeding them because we see a frog for sale for $200, but realistically, if we would like to preserve these species (at least genetically), we need to handle the breeding more responsibly. 
Secondly, let me just point out that I am aware that this post is not very well written and/or organized, but i'm typing stuff as i think it, so I hope you can bear with me for a bit more...
Next, with importation of commonly available species of dart frogs (auratus, pumilio, etc.) it is completely unneccesary to bring these in to the country. THe only reason they are is because a few people have a selfish desire to put them in 10 gallon glass boxes to look at and the current breeding population in the united states is too small so the importers realized that they could make a quick buck at the expense of the wild populations of these creatures. It honestly sickens me to see WC A. callidryas (not a dart frog, I know...) for sale on the kingsnake ad's...these guys are VERY easy to breed in captivity (even someone like myself has been successful at it) so the need for them to be brought in as WC is in my humble opinion, zero. 
I know, that people are probably thinking, "well, Ben, you idiot, we need new WC imports to preserve the genetics of these guys...we can't have a bunch of inbred frogs here! After all, the only ones left in a few years will be in the U.S.A. and europe at the rate their habitat is being destroyed."
While the second part may be true, I don't believe that this justifies the importation of animals. At the rate we are so irresponsibly breeding these frogs, their gene pool would be so damaged even if we had the entire population in the U.S.A. because people want to make a quick dollar...most (not all) breeders do not care much about the genetic purity of the animals as brother-sister matings are very common in the hobby.
I do agree, however, that this is the best of a bad job and that inbred frogs are better than WC ones being brought in, I just meant to say that if we imported every dart frog from central america that we would find a way to pollute their gene pool and nail the final nail in the coffin of the species. THis is not to say that they would not eventually go extinct in the wild due to coffee plantations or something, it just shifts the responsibility of the extinction on to hobbyists rather than farmers.
Honestly, i think the only solution is: education. This is, of course, a dream, and educating all of south america about how important their biodiversity is a non-reality. I figure, if we educated all of them, and everyone here (USA, not dendroboard) on proper, responsible breeding, we could have sustainable populations both here and in central america.
Anyway, I've lost the next few thoughts that were in my head, so i shoudl probably stop typing as I'm sure this post is longer than most of you would care to read...if i think up anything else I'll follow up.
Also, if you would like to take personal assaults on my mother, intelligence, physical appearance, lack of breeding experience, lack of education, etc. please do it via P.M. as I'm sure most of the casual readers on this website don't want to hear it.
THank you for reading, and I hope i contributed sufficiently to the topic.
~Ben


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

I agree in that imports of frogs that are already well represented should stop, but what about frogs that are not well represented? What about D. mysteriosus, D. captiva, D. occulator, D. vanzolinii, D. speciosus, D. sirensis, and others? There's many, many morphs of even now common frogs like tincs, pumillio, and auratus that are not available. Who here doesn't want a blue jeans pumillio? I don't advocate importing so many of them that everyone that wants one can get one right away, but it would be nice to have at least small numbers coming in so that well known breeders can work with them.


----------



## dpotter1 (Feb 29, 2004)

I am most likely in the minority with this opinion. But I think that opening imports of more frogs might actually help wild populations. Allowing SMALL numbers of rarer and more endangered species into the hobby legally would eventually kill a lot of the illegal smuggling of frogs into the country. The shippers might not have the best success rate with the pumilio, but can you imagine the success rate of the people smuggling them in film containers?

If they had begun to release a few hundred mysterious or any other of the endangered frogs ten years ago, would they still be smuggled in such large numbers today or would they be as common as leucs or auratus?


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2005)

Great topics Dave! I hope we can stay civil and have a good discussion on this. I think there are a couple misconceptions at the foundation of this discussion that must be addressed. I can't claim developing 100% of the ideas below, since I have been discussing this with a few people lately, but I'm sure that they won't mind 

The first issue addresses the reasons of, goals for, and complexities related to this hobby (for lack of a better word). Some people imagine getting in these amazing wild caught frogs keeping them in captivity for a few years and then helping in some reintroduction project, when the source population becomes extinct. Let's just say that unless you want more auratus infesting Hawaii, this just ain't gonna work. Not many people want to admit it, but we keep frogs because we want to possess something of beauty. My absurd collection of hippity-hops does nothing except keep me happy and consume my paycheck. That said.... I would not have it any other way. Additionally, these are not easy animals to keep alive. I think we are all a little desensitized to the complexities of keeping these species. Their housing, feeding, health, and breeding requirements often baffle even the best keepers.

The second set of misconceptions is how these non-US bred frogs get into our hands. I will definitely tip-toe on this issue, but I can promise you that the export and import of Dendrobates is a business. People are not risking thousands of dollars for the nobility of thickening our bloodlines. Importing 30-40 pumilio is a money loosing venture at best. The only way to reduce the risk of loss the frogs must be quickly shipped out of their home country, into the importer's hands, into the 1-_*5*_ other hands that touch them, and then into your hands. For every hour that these frogs sit in their collection bucket or little solo cups, they get more dehydrated and hungry, making them more susceptible the bacterial, fungal, and parasitic threats that exist in their natural environment and are usually not a threat. Very few people keep these frogs long enough to even feed or stabilize them. So know what you are getting!

The third issue is the novelty of these imports. This is not the first import of pumilio of this scale. Not too long ago, a man creek-like pumilio flooded into this country from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. I'm currently in search of a male from these shipments, and, as of right now, there are none to be found. This flood of mans, bastis, and brunos is not novel, and everyone was just as excited and dedicated last time.

I guess the law of supply and demand dictates that the pumilio will keep coming. The cat is totally out of the bag and running around at this point. There are people who want pumilio and don't want to wait for those who have them to breed, raise, and overprice froglets in comparison to the "cheap" importation price. What bugs me the most is the quantity of auratus and tree frogs that have become the necessary casualties of these pumilio imports. They are basically packing peanuts. There are "vendors" selling amazing auratus (which people will be asking about in 2 years *mark my words*) that have never sold (nor even cared for) a dart frog. If someone can't spell Auratus or call Man Creeks "Strawberry Sweets," I am not going to buy frogs from them.

Wow... I think that's enough to fight about for a long while  I apologize if I have railroaded to conversation in any way, but this has been bubbling up in me for a while. I just think the best way to deal with these import is educating people on exactly what they are buying, the risks involve, and what their dollar is supporting.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

I have one thing to say about all of this. If the exporter is conducting a legitimate business, and following the relevant laws, I feel that we have no business saying that we are going to shut down that business. That smacks of elitism, or using the power of government to squash the competition. I just don't see how telling some frog farmer or exporter/collector, who does this for a living, to go stuff it, is fair, or good conservation.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Great topic*

I think this is a great topic and i am firm believer that a controlled sustainable harvest of many of these species may be the only way some will continue to exist. By creating a commercial value and regulating give the local population a huge incentive to protect the habitat in which these animals live. 
Unfortunately it is hard to believe there is any regulation regarding the collecting of the Pumilio in terms of how many of each morph is being pulled from the wild.
My guess would be no green ones have come in the last few shipments because they can't find any.
Mark


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> That smacks of elitism, or using the power of government to squash the competition. I just don't see how telling some frog farmer or exporter/collector, who does this for a living, to go stuff it, is fair, or good conservation


Well, when did anyone say that? While it is a controversial topic, I applaud that you have an opposing view. No one here is pointing fingers, we just wanted to have a friendly discussion on the topic of ethics of importation, that's it. I don't think anyone has an agenda. But clearly there are a few people who feel very strongly against the idea. Another topic is the local people collecting the frogs in the first place. If it put food in my son's mouth, I'd do it too. Environment be damned. 


But as I see it, how is it good for the frogs being imported? Again why do we need to be importing these frogs? I am just taking a position and running with it, as I said earlier, lets have a friendly argument and have some fun.
Dave[/quote]


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2005)

Hello everybody. Everyone has great views and comments. We have no doubt touched emotions of people in regards to these creatures and their enviroments. I do not have alot of experience with PDF's but I have a desire to know as much as I can about these guys. Can you imagine how most of us would had to find this type of support group anywhere in the world twenty years ago? These forums are an excellent way to assist in the quality of life the frogs can have from us. 

Being in Canada, our country makes it more difficult to import frogs or any living animal for that matter. I keep saltwater fish and only dream of being able to "collect" some of the magnificant species I see available in the US. Maybe for good reason. If our government makes it difficult to have these species in our posession, it may take the urge away to want these guys. The same goes for the saltwater trade in Canada. As I am sure many fellow Canadians will agree, as well as any American who has tried to ship across the 49th. Apparently we cannot keep the terroists out, but don't you dare bring a poison frog, or other creature or plant, accross with out filling out your life story on twenty page reports.  


Here is an idea. Perhaps the zoos of the world should control the flora fauna trades. Lets think about this for a momment. They can profit to improve their studies, and displays, and perhaps only those who pay for education or training through their institutions can qualify to obtain permits to purchase, house and breed these or any other creature, which the zoo's would be the only supplier of certain important creatures. Of course this is extreme. With a bit of fine tuning, can be a very positive program for many of us people who think we should have the right to own such beautiful creatures. I would pay to learn more from the experts. would you?


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> Well, when did anyone say that? While it is a controversial topic, I applaud that you have an opposing view.





Merriam-Webster Online said:


> eliitism-
> 2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY 1 <elitism in choosing new members>


I think people who already have "coveted" frogs, most likely imported frogs, or captive bred from a five mile long waiting list, condemning new imports, smacks of elitism. And if it doesn't, then we need a new definition of elitisim. Why, as long as whoever is doing the exportation is operating legitimately, should we shut down someone who is just trying to make a living. Keep shutting down every legitimate business people have and all they are left with is slash and burn.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

dreamweefer said:


> Here is an idea. Perhaps the zoos of the world should control the flora fauna trades. Lets think about this for a momment. They can profit to improve their studies, and displays, and perhaps only those who pay for education or training through their institutions can qualify to obtain permits to purchase, house and breed these or any other creature, which the zoo's would be the only supplier of certain important creatures. Of course this is extreme. With a bit of fine tuning, can be a very positive program for many of us people who think we should have the right to own such beautiful creatures. I would pay to learn more from the experts. would you?


...Well, to be honest with you I have never seen a zoo exhibit look very convincing...rock walls that look like somebody's fireplace...Snake cages with newspaper on the floor...turtles crawling around in wood shavings...the list goes on and on. (maybee I just go to the wrong zoos :lol: )
With numerous hobbiests in every state (outnumbering the zoos by a good margin) There are a lot more minds independent doing "research" if you will, with the hobby the way it is. I think with the hobby being limited by zoos more than likely what would happen is the resident herp guy would have to work darts into his/her schedule.
Also, just because an institution is well known and respected doesn't mean they know beans about darts...For example...while shopping for a new frog calender this year, I was looking at one produced by a very respected magazine...out of twelve pictures, I spotted at least two of them that were mislabled...I immediatly lost a lot of respect for the magazine, and refused to buy the calender.
I could see you're point of view though, It would be nice to be certain every frog that is imported ends up in the hands of a knowledgable breeder that can make the most of the new genes...I think that most of us (outside of those here that do work for zoos) probably know more about darts than than almost any zoo's reptile guy.

We don't "need" the imports...any more than we "need" a shiny car. If you never heard about the different frogs...you'd never "need" them. If you feel you "need" something different, maybee you could take the money spent on vivs, frogs, flies, lights, water filtration, plants, paper towels and etc. on a plane ticket and just experience something different...but only if you "need" to!

That being said...I'm all for imports on a "practical" scale, and still cant wait for the INIBCO project to come through!


----------



## MPepper (Feb 29, 2004)

> Why, as long as whoever is doing the exportation is operating legitimately, should we shut down someone who is just trying to make a living. Keep shutting down every legitimate business people have and all they are left with is slash and burn.


thats an interesting point, however in this case I dont think if the farms shut down in panama, the frog farmer will be out of work and will have to resort to slash and burn. I think its more of a secondary source of income. I'll counter your argument with this ; should we continue to support a bussiness, even if "legit" knowing that it was damaging wild populations/local ecology of a region. By supporting this bussiness is it better to avoid slash and burn at the expence of the frogs? When all of the frogs are gone, or any other valuable harvestable commodities, the only value left in the forest is often in timber, or in slash and burn. harveting has to be done in a sustainable manner, and only then is it beneficial in the long run to the local people, to us in the hobby and potentially from a conservation standpoint. unfortunately for example in peru frog collecting by locals around tarapoto and chazuta is common. It is not hard to buy fantasticus from the locals if one so desired, what is becoming increasingly difficult (in some areas, most easily accessible) is finding them in the wild, signs of collecting pressures are obvious in some ares we just visited, and once healthy populations of orange imitator, now largely wiped out, as the majority of the heliconia stands hacked down to collect the pairs residing in the sheath. Its really a sad by product of a hobby we all enjoy, that by attaching the idea monetary value to these animals we have opened the doors to exploition, and unfortunately, the locals, who IMHO have more right to make money off these frogs than anyone else are not getting a fair shake, when the smugglers pay between 1-5 sols (. 35-1.65$) for a frog that the smugglers will sell for far far far more.

whats the solution, a step would be a sustainable program where revenues are dispersed to the locals creating an incentive to keep the forest and the frogs for future generations, INIBICO looked promising. but for people often living a day to day basis its hard to think to the future.

Unfortunately, even if the rarest frogs became readily available in captivity, as long as it has a decent market value, there will be those looking to exploit them illegally (smuggle) and there will be those willing to purchase them. reticulatus and intermedious for example large numbers were recently offered for sale by a certain individual in europe...lets just say they were not cb.

Discussions like this are important, and its a good topic Dave. And I agree largely that there is already so much avaiable that no one could possibly keep all morphs available...its excitng to get new morphs, but my opinion is that it should be done responsibly, and not by supporting the work of smugglers. Atleast in the panamanian process attempts were made to do this the legal route with CITES papers, and through the proper (legal) modes of exportation, (and that some of the people involved in the initial imports worked hard to get this going, and are good people, however the situation seem now a little out of control) more than can be said for all the new quinq group frogs that arrive in europe every so often. However i think the numbers of auratus coming in is riduculous...I bet Joe is right though, 2-3 years from now people will likely be looking/struggling to make prs of them.

sadly like everything else in life there is no perfect solution. 

to sum up my feelings, as much as i enjoy frogs in vivaria, I get a far bigger thrill out of seeing them in the forest. Show me a sustaiable, locally equitable, legal, and fair import program and i would gladly support it. 

*Dreamweefer* regarding importation into Canada, for CITES II animals its not any more complicated than any other countery, its actually quite easy comparatively speaking as canada doesn't require an import permit as many european and asian countries do. All we require is an export permit from the country of origin, and that is where the problem/difficulty often lies, Finding a breeder with the proper paperwork, or the desire to go through the rigours of the application process. The inspection and customs clearance is a straightforward procedure, paying the tax on import is the most painful part.

its late, so i hope this made sence. great posts everyone.
mark


----------



## MPepper (Feb 29, 2004)

I would also like to add, that while i dont feel it's neccesary for imports of the same morphs (pumilio) to continue at the rates they are, I think that its a good thing that some experienced people are buying from the importers as shipments arrive, and getting frogs into adequate care, and even sexing out prs for clients, this should hopefully help ensure these will be around long after the exports cease .


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2005)

Rarity:  the state of being rare; *thing valued for its scarcity*

The problem I see with the imports is the fact that the importer is being forced to buy other frogs like auratus. How many people here have bought auratus on a 10 to 1 ration to the pumilio? For everyone that buys 20 pumilio there are 200 auratus sitting somewhere. It does bother me, and I have no problem being an elitist if that means I care for the auratus dieing so someone new to the hobby can have a pumilio. 

Why are the pumilio so much more coveted than the auratus? Because before the imports pumilio were rare! It has been a driving force in all of us at one point. People will always want what they can't have. I just hate to see animals suffer so we can keep frogs.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*Also*



> I have no problem being an elitist if that means I care for the auratus dieing so someone new to the hobby can have a pumilio.


Well said.

Lots of frogs in central america are suffering massive deaths at the hands of not man, but Chitrid. Speaking to Justin Yeager last night, he is disappointed that so many Atelopus are gone due to chitrid. It's a real threat, and puts the captive bred hobby at risk, no question about it.


----------



## bluetip (May 18, 2004)

Hi guys,

Very interesting topic...I apologize for my long piece but I think the question of importation of endangered animals for the pet trade such as dart frogs goes hand in hand with conservation and good hobby practices.

The hard fact about exotic animals is that it is usually an endemic species of a certain location. There is no locale that can simply keep on supplying any growing world demand.

With the population of people growing all over the world, demand will keep on growing for any animal trade. There are more hobbyists today than 10 years ago. If animals don't go to the hobbyists, they eventually go to some function that we can come up with- food, zoos, oranaments? Even if we don't find any use for them, well, we sure have use for their habitat...wood, land, water. Strain on any species is actually a combined effort by us people to make effecient use of any natural resource out there.

How do we help in conservation?
1. Awareness 
2. Education 
3. Alternative livelihood
4. Sustainable harvest
5. Protection of Habitat
6. Flora and Fauna Reintroduction

Awareness and Education, luckily is on the way yet is still not enough. More and more people are aware of the stress we put on our environment. More non-governmental organizations are playing an active role in teaching people about conservation.

Alternative Livelihood. How can you tell a family of 5 to stop hunting these animals and earn a days wage when they don't have anything to eat? Furthermore, what will they do if they don't hunt? It's what they've been doing all of their lives.

Good government control and effective control of illegal smuggling to give any species time to regenerate.

Habitat Protection and flora / fauna reintroduction unfortunately are the 2 most important things yet are one of the toughest to do.

I see that Dendroboard is a very good start to this though. When people with a common passion can come together to discuss and help a hobby improve. This serves as an important foundation on any future habitat protection and reintroduction of the species into the wild.

People here seem to have a good success rate in breeding dendros. This is a big factor. You guys are really at the position to grow the population and each member has the responsibility to keep the species alive and protect the gene pool as much as you can. Don't get into dendros out of impulse. Strive for a conscious effort to disallow brother sister inbreeding. Take the extra effort to find a different lineage when mating your frogs. I think this can really help sustain the current hobby population (at least for some of the species) therefore would eventually minimize / elliminate any need for imported specimens. 

We are aware of the pitfalls of bad hobby practices like inbreeding for the sake of breeding and creating our man made variants. We've learned this time and time again from a lot of the other hobbies out there. From fish to snakes to dogs. Now that we know better, why continue on making the same mistakes? We are dealing with an endangered species and we can't afford to destroy the lines that we currently have and justify for any further bulk importation of such a delicate species.

I was watching National Geographic the other day regarding keeping of big cats in the U.S. There are, in fact, more tigers now in the U.S. that are kept as pets than there are in the wild. We may not notice it...but for all we know, 10 years down the line, there may already be more dendros in the U.S. than in the forests of South America and if we don't trust the genetic lines that we have, well, these frogs are as good as dead.

So is importation necessary? I honestly think if we as hobbyist will not be able to multiply the species then importation should be stopped and natural habitat protection should be enforced at all cost. But if responsible hobbyists can and are able to multiply the species and execute good practices, then importation for their needs can be allowed in a controlled manner to help the wild in regenerating the population.

Just my 2 cents.

regards,

bing


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Re: inbreeding:

Has there been any negative results from inbreeding? Do you think that these frogs would be affected by inbreeding and to what extent? In humans, inbreeding has a negative effect, but frogs being not as advanced by humans, will they be affected in the same way and how would you even know? Just some questions I had.

Another thing:

When you talk about saving lines of frogs, what constitutes a line? Is it an unrelated pair breeding that produces a line? Now you need to find an unrelated mate for the young. So when those two parent frogs die, is the line going to end? Since the young will be bred with another new line, won't that then cause another line? But what about species like standard lamasi, how many lines are their, like 3? People have enough trouble obtaining the one line, let alone another to match them up with. Would people be willing to tell you where they got their frogs from so taht when you buy them, you also know their history? I know some places offer information on the line for certain species, but not all. For dogs, I believe they have some organization that keeps track of the lines for people. Interesting idea, but difficult for sure. Now for keeping these in groups, in order to establish new lines, you would need to assure that all males are from one line and all females from another, otherwise if they were mixed, you never know which frogs reproduced and if you get multiple clutches at the same time, forget it. 

Just some things I thought of as I read this thread.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*wow*

You people are putting down some pretty interesting points. Well done. I have heard the new bloodline argument before. While it is a bummer that a few bloodlines are out there. Someone needs to prove to me otherwise that we need more. As I see it the number of people breeding D. fantasicus for example is growing.
Dave


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Yes, many people may be breeding them. The topic of inbreeding was brought up, which should make those concerned about inbreeding wonder, if they get one frog from person X and another from person Y, does that mean two different lines? Not necessarily, without proper documentation, who knows if they are related. At this point in hte hobby, would it be even possible to bring everyones bloodline info. out into the open. I am sure not everyone would be willing to cooperate. Say someone has wild caughts, you assume they are not related, jsut because you have no other choice. The bloodline info. should go down from there. If they were sold from one big breeder to another big breeder, record that and so on. But, I guess, too late, unless anyone else can say otherwise. I think it would be a tough task to complete.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2005)

Uh... all i have to say is :*DOWN WITH WILD-CAUGHT-ISM!*


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2005)

Well to start off Ive got 2 d. auratus which i believe is morph 15 off this site http://www.tropical-experience.nl/aurat ... &submenu=2. I got them from aarons frog from in buffalo.

Im looking for some leucs I will tell you guys where I get them from when I get them. Well thats all I got


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Huh?


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2005)

I just put what I had and where they came from So if anyone tried to keep track of frog lines in the future like they do dogs


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

IMHO, if things continue as they have been, some darts have so little time left that some individuals of these species should be taken into captivity ASAP to start captive breeding programs, even if they go to zoos and not individuals.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

*Re: wow*



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> You people are putting down some pretty interesting points. Well done. I have heard the new bloodline argument before. While it is a bummer that a few bloodlines are out there. Someone needs to prove to me otherwise that we need more. As I see it the number of people breeding D. fantasicus for example is growing.
> Dave


I think I got my point accross before about "need".
I think it would be nice to have some of these strains of frogs to introduce into the hobby:
http://personal.ecu.edu/emt0424/peru04/dendrobates.html


----------



## dpotter1 (Feb 29, 2004)

I agree with the idea that it is in the best interest of the frogs (genetically speaking) for at least a small population of frogs to be imported and bred responsibly. But I believe that they really are better off in the hands of dedicated hobbyist and breeders then zoos. 

Zoos are very good with large and warm blooded animals. But many do not have the expertise or time to really care for the frogs. 

I know of a local zoo that lost a large number of frogs to less then exceptional care. We have all seen pictures of most zoo exhibits with 3 to 4 species. 

I would hate to see that happen to a frog that no longer has a home in the wild.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2005)

Unfortunately, I saw the PDFs at the Fresno zoo today... Tincs labeled as D. azureus in what looks like a 10 gal tank with a half flower pot and aquarium gravel on the bootom and one vining plant that had a total of about 4 leaves. The zoo can be no beter than your average pet store sometimes. These were not the only creture in the reptile house that were not being kept in what I would consider "quality environments" and the stress shows in the animals. I was VERY dissapointed.

I've been told that you can inbreed sibling frogs for over 10 generations without consiquences, but I've as yet not read the source the gentlemane was citing for his info. Logically however, it just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm witholding judgment until I've had a chance to find REAL research and not base my opinions purely on what I would realisticly expect to be very biased opinions from froggers who do inbreed siblings. Does anyone know where to find such official an unbiased sientific research, conducted by people who have no niterest in defending either position?


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

Arachnid said:


> Unfortunately, I saw the PDFs at the Fresno zoo today... Tincs labeled as D. azureus in what looks like a 10 gal tank with a half flower pot and aquarium gravel on the bootom and one vining plant that had a total of about 4 leaves.


That is exactly what I was trying to say about most zoo exhibits...I see some get it right though...look here:
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6127


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Jeez, miss one day and trouble maker Dave stirs up a 3 page hornet's nest. So I've only very quickly scanned the previous posts and love the discussion. From what I've seen, I think I agree with almost everything said placed in the right context except I hate the argument that "if we don't collect them, the slash and burners will". That harkens back to the 19th when the last passenger pigeons were killed for specimens by private and public collectiors. The thinking was to hurry up and collect before they are all gone. Sorry, can't agree with that one.

But I do think all these arguments need to be put into context. There is a difference between what is good for the hobby and what is good for conservation. That doesn't mean they are in conflict though. For example, I don't think the hobby "needs" imports. That seems rather silly given that the hobby is a luxury in itself. I just posted on Arlier's thread about rare imports about why I think a high pace of new imports could harm the hobby. But the hobby could certainly sustain a slow pace of new imports provided we take care of what we already have first. But done right, importations could really help conservation of frogs in the wild. Emphasis on "done right". I think there are some enormous opportunities for conserving wild PDF and their habitats through exporting them to the hobby market. But the big question is whether these ventures can work without exporting frogs faster than the hobby can responsibly absorb them. I don't know. I don't think that imports help us bolster genetic diversity of captive lines. I just posted about that on the other thread too. They COULD help bolster genetic lines if they were done right. Well, they probably couldn't help current lines but certainly future lines.

So many good thoughts have already been presented that I don't have much to add other than to point out that the hobby and conservation are two different things. I'm just glad to finally see this discussion come about without it falling into the typical rationalization to defend practices that are bad for conservation. It's nice to see.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I would not recommend that Zoos be placed in charge of importing/exporting animals for the pet trade or in any major way in charge of regulating the pet trade at this time (at least in the USA).

Zoos are too gate driven and most cannot tolerate any significant bad publicity as it lowers gate revenues. A large number of US zoos could potentially be closed in the next several years unless something changes. A vast majority of them had thier funding from the city/county/state slashed or cut totally with the crash of the stock market. 

While many hobbyists are better at breeding and maintaing the animals than many Zoos, the Zoos are good at maintaining continuing information on husbandry. The problem here is that many Zoos and the hobby do not communicate. 

Ed


----------



## jhupp (Feb 27, 2004)

> The problem here is that many Zoos and the hobby do not communicate.
> 
> Ed


There is a reason for that, Zoos don't like hobbyist. Case in point, In December of last year a group of people got together to try and start to address the issue of global amphibian decline. One of the things they are pushing for, among many others, is to put rare and endangered frogs in the hands of hobbyist. Much like what they did with that large shipment of endangered Asian turtles that was confiscated and sent to Miami. ARCC has found support from the European hobbyist (American hobbyist haven't been invited to the conferences yet), the scientific community and from the governments of several Central and South American countries. The opposition has been from the Zoos, who have presented a long list of reasons why hobbyist shouldn't have these frogs...all of which boil down to profit or paperwork. Sorry for going of topic...

And now slightly back to it...I say we start exporting all the high elevation species we can out of Central and South America. Starting about mid-way down Panama and going south. Let’s get them before the Chytrid does... 

Seriously though, I think importation can be ok, if done responsibly (I definitely think it’s not done responsibly). I am not for taking species well established in the hobby from the wild and I am not for taking the last of critically endangered species from the wild to send to Zoos in America or Europe (especially when those Zoos make promises they never fulfill). What I would love to see are in situ captive breeding programs where local people are producing local frogs and then exporting them. What a world that would be...

Jay


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

jhupp said:


> > The problem here is that many Zoos and the hobby do not communicate.
> >
> > Ed
> 
> ...


Geez, I thought I was imagining that!
Over Christmas, I was talking with a cousin who is schooling to be a zoologist...I sort of got the exact opposite response that I respected...it was pretty clear that hobbiests that keep exotic animals are pretty much frowned upon by those that are "qualified" to keep them.

quote (jhupp);
"And now slightly back to it...I say we start exporting all the high elevation species we can out of Central and South America. Starting about mid-way down Panama and going south. Let’s get them before the Chytrid does... " (jhupp)

Ideally this would work...but if all of the sudden there were as many (or even more) wild caught darts than captive bred...what are the chances of importing the plague right with them? Then presumably, the whole hobby, and potentially even native species could be in jeapordy. I'm not talking about any pathogen or parasite in particular, I'm no vet, but I'm sure there are risks, other than, and including Cytrid.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

jhupp said:


> There is a reason for that, Zoos don't like hobbyist. Case in point, In December of last year a group of people got together to try and start to address the issue of global amphibian decline. One of the things they are pushing for, among many others, is to put rare and endangered frogs in the hands of hobbyist.


But this may be changing. Fortunately we have Ed and others on the "inside" and who are also connected with the hobby and continue to point out the potential benefits of working with the hobby.

On the other side of the coin, the anuran hobby in the U.S. is very immature compared with the Europeans. By this I mean that we have no formal organization and have not really trained ourselves on genetics and conservation breeding programs. 99.9% of the dart frog hobby in the U.S. is still about keeping dart frogs for aesthetics and personal enrichment. There is nothing wrong with this but I think it's a little unfair to blame zoos for not liking us when we really haven't done much to show that we can provide what they need. Look at the tortoise hobby in the U.S. They are organized and self trained to a pseudo professional level and the zoos have been working with them because of it. We should put ourselves in the zoo's place. If you were at a zoo and you needed to place rare frogs in the hands of a private breeder, who would you go to? If you didn't know someone personally that could be trusted, you would be stuck. We have no organization, no accountability, and no way to provide zoos with a list of breeders with the credentials they would need for conservation programs with rare animals.

If zoos misunderstand our intentions and who we are, then I think it is up to *us* to change our reputations.


----------



## bluetip (May 18, 2004)

Wonderfully said bbrock! I have always been a fan of your insights and words!

bing


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2005)

> If zoos misunderstand our intentions and who we are, then I think it is up to us to change our reputations.


EXTREMELY good point. I'm brand new to this particular hobby, but I have quite a bit of experience with keeping arachnids, and have bred some species. Being that the arachnid keeping hobby itself is very disorganized as well, there would be no way I would expect anyone with the "propper education" to place in my hands a rare species of tarantula for a captive breeding program. I have to say that without some formal gathering and record keeping such as the tortoise community have, conservationists, zoos, and the scientific community at large have every reason to shun "hobbyists" in matters of conservation of critically endangered species.

The simple fact that there are debates over inbreeding, using WC food supplies, and other issues that occassionally create conflict between members here is a perfect example of WHY things are this way between hoibbyists and zoos. Until SCIENTIFIC research is done and presented propperly and followed among the hobbyist "community", then it can not be taken seriously AS a "community". Until then it is simply a gathering of individuals and cannot be entrusted as a whole with such important work IMHO. This does not mean that any one individual within the group might not be qualified, but simply that being a "member" of this "community" cannot be sufficient evidence of ones qualifications. What the "hobbyist community" NEEDS, is leadership by someone with acceptable qualifications who can and will disseminate accurate SCIENTIFICLY SOUND information on these and other issues. 

Although it may come off as soundig "elitist", some form of testing would be required in order to ensure that "members" of this "community" were adequately knowlegable to handle such responsability in order to show outside groups such as zoos that being a "member" of the community MEANT something. 

Just my opinions.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

We've kept it pretty quiet but there is a group of us working on a set of breeding guidelines and a draft system that might be used to address these issues. Since this is a volunteer effort done in our spare time, it has been slow going but I have been thinking about taking a hiatus from DB and Frognet to push it along. But one thing that should be stressed is that we are not trying to create a way to police the hobby. What we want is a system where people who support our goals and are interested in participating can join. I'm not sure how much interest there will be in such a system but I think all we can do is produce a draft document and see where it goes.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2005)

I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of interest in something like that. I for one would love to help in any way I could with that. To actually be able to help the hobby move forward should be "honored" (can't think of a better word) by the people who help. Maybe respected would be better but I don't think it conveys the message enough. I hope the the whole group as hobbiest try to push something like this forward. All it could do is benifit us all.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

One point on Zoos and hobbyists not communicating or working together: At least when speaking of dart frogs, many of the zoos get animals from confiscations. Case in point was an institution getting a group of somewhere around 25 bullseye histrionicus a few years back. Now put in the right group of hobbyists' hands, there would at least be a chance of having these somewhat established in the US hobby. A slim chance I'll admit but a chance none the less. Now the institution that got them are very well known for their work in dart frogs and they certainly were in capable hands. But because they were confiscations, the zoo is "legally" bound to not distribute any animals into the hobby. I think this even goes for cb offspring (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Now take the same situation that happened with castaneoticus, again a confiscation that should have never gotten into the hands of hobbyists, but it did, and I would venture to say that castaneoticus is pretty well established at this point, even though they are probably all still considered illegal. So what is my point: If zoos would work together with the hobby they could help in keeping animals from disappearing from the hobby. Several problems and conflicts of interest I think prevent that from happening though. 1) legally they can't with some animals from confiscations. 2) the hobby makes money off of frogs (as a whole) and I think that goes against a "core value" of a zoo. So the zoos have no interest in working with hobbyists because their "core values" are not the same (for the most part). A zoos' primary goal is to educate the public about wildlife and through that hopefully inspire a respect for wildlife and spark an interest in conservation. A hobbyist may have great intentions in regards to conserving nature etc. but having a frog in a tank at your house is purely a luxury and does very little in terms of educating the public or promoting conservation. Now admittedly there are events like IAD and others that through foundations such as MARS are actively doing things with regards to conservation. But again if you look at the hobby as a whole (not just certain individuals), we consume wildlife and there is big money in that consumption. Not saying that is good or bad just not in line with what zoos supposed to be about.

One final thought on the original topic of WC importations. It would be great if it could be done in a sustainable manner, ie INIBICO or the Farm-Raised concept. Whether or not that is realistic, I have my hopes and my doubts. The model of requiring purchase of 100's of some "not in demand" frogs for every 10 "in demand" frogs hasn't ever made sense and doesn't seem to be in line with where I would think a sustainable harvest would be.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

One of the problems with Zoos working with the public is that in a large number of occasions the Zoos have been "burned" by the member of the public with which they have been dealing. 
A good case in point is with Dyscophus antongilii. All of the stock was originally held in the Zoo community. A researcher thought he would be able to breed them by using hormonal manipulation. The Zoos pooled their animals, got an agreement together and sent thier frogs for breeding. 
Well the person was successful. He sent some animals back to the Zoos, but he also reported animals being deceased that were alive and in his possession and sold these adults as well as offspring in violation of the agreement. This sort of thing has happened more than once resulting in a very negative opinion of the hobbyist community. 

The fact that hobbysists often send very aggressive and negative commentaries or posts over Zoos failing to release "rare" species or color morphs that are not present in the hobby does nothing to improve this image. 

There are private individuals that are holding Zoo stock and breeding it on loans or other agreements with Zoos but these individuals are few and far between and have long years of dedication as well as spotless reputations but I have to say that these are the exception to the rule, as an institution we have had far more problems with private individuals holding animals than we have had successes.

snip " But because they were confiscations, the zoo is "legally" bound to not distribute any animals into the hobby. I think this even goes for cb offspring (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Now take the same situation that happened with castaneoticus, again a confiscation that should have never gotten into the hands of hobbyists, but it did, and I would venture to say that castaneoticus is pretty well established at this point, even though they are probably all still considered illegal"

This is because the "ownership" animals are not released to the Zoo, so the Zoo has no say in the disposition of the animals. Either the court system owns them as evidence, USF&W owns them (talk about a negative opinion of the hobbyist, talk to the field agents), or the country of origin owns them and all of the progeny. This is why they cannot be released to the private sector. I have seen it take more than a decade to get an animal released to a Zoo from that system. If it is the country of origin claiming ownership, forget it. 

And as far as castenoticus are concerned, these were not confiscated. The original animals (and any subsequent offspring) are/were on loan from Brazil to a researcher to study reproductive behaviors in that species. Some of the offspring were then placed on loan to another institution where they reproduced. These offspring were removed from that institutions care and disseminated into the hobby in violation of the international agreement. There is some argument around the disposition of the animals but needless to say the institution reported them stolen. 
This means that all castenoticus in the USA are descended from "stolen" animals that were disseminated in violation of an international agreement. Technically all sales of castenoticus that cross a state line could be considered a violation of the LACY act. I do not think that castenoticus is wide spread enough to prevent a widespread confiscation an agency if they chose. 

Just some comments
Ed


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Ed said:


> ... One of the problems with Zoos working with the public is that
> The fact that hobbysists often send very aggressive and negative commentaries or posts over Zoos failing to release "rare" species or color morphs that are not present in the hobby does nothing to improve this image. ...
> Ed


I hope no one interpreted my post as aggressive or negative towards zoos because of "failure to release rare species". My intent was to explain why zoos do not or cannot release animals and/or work with hobbyists whether it's auratus or histrionicus. I can't believe anyone would "complain" to a zoo because they won't doll out rare frogs to the hobby, but maybe people do.


----------



## ryalan (Mar 19, 2005)

I am agree that we must avoid the (in this case) the export of wild fauna cos it produce deaths in the export country and the import country too, I am in the fish business and is very sad to see how many fishes died, but like in the frogs world, there is a market stablish....
The idea is breed all those wild animals and export the F1 so the breeders in the import countries will have better specimens with more quality, it means "fresh genes" and less death animals in both sides, maybe with the new regulations worldwide will be possible that


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

rmelancon said:


> I hope no one interpreted my post as aggressive or negative towards zoos because of "failure to release rare species". My intent was to explain why zoos do not or cannot release animals and/or work with hobbyists whether it's auratus or histrionicus. I can't believe anyone would "complain" to a zoo because they won't doll out rare frogs to the hobby, but maybe people do.


Robb, I thought your message was very clear. It was a very thoughtful commentary about why zoos are somewhat justified in their opinion of the hobby.


----------



## DaFrogMan (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm not sure if someone has already said something to this effect, I haven't read this whole post. Anyways, I'm reminded of something we were talking about way back when I was taking bio in high school:

Some animal species that aren't doing well end up falling into an "extinction vortex." This happens when there aren't enough members of the species around, and therefore isn't enough genetic diversity. Once the species hits this point, extinction is almost certain. The only thing that can be done to remedy this is to step in and purposefully mix up the animals in an effort to create more genetic diversity.

I think we need to import some frogs into the trade, but not as many as we are right now. It needs to be controlled and as minimal as possible. It is only needed in order to add some gene flow and keep the genetic diversity.

may say that our frogs are fine now and there is plenty diversity, and that frogs in the trade are in no danger - but is that because we are already importing large numbers of frogs?

Sure the more popular species such as auratus, leucs, and cobalts might do fine with no importation - as I understand, a few species such as azureus are no longer imported period, and they're doing fine. But the less common species will suffer if importation is cut off.

If importation were cut off, we wouldn't see the effects for a while. But it will start with an increase in genetic abnormalities and diseases in the less common species, then it will move on to lower clutch sizes, and then before you know it we are in trouble and will be forced to either import a large number of frogs all at once, or start hybridizing - both poor choices, but which is the lesser evil?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

DaFrogMan said:


> I'm not sure if someone has already said something to this effect, I haven't read this whole post. Anyways, I'm reminded of something we were talking about way back when I was taking bio in high school:


I think the extinction vortex is more theoretical than real. The closest I can think are the Florida panthers which are all now as genetically related as brothers and sisters. However, it was habitat destruction that put them to that point. Same goes for cheetah that underwent a natural severe genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago yet continued to hold on just fine until humans starter persucuting them with modern weapons and fragmenting their habitat. American bison, pronghorn antelope, and grizzly bear have all gone through incredibly severe genetic bottlenecks within the last 150 years and yet have rebounded to genetically robust populations.

The biggest problem I have with the imports for genetic diversity argument is that the way we currently mismanage captive lines and imports, we don't see a genetic benefit. Since we almost never have locality data, we treat every importation as if it were a different blood line so the genes never mix. My suspicion is that many of the species or morphs being kept have been improperly divided up into narrow little blood lines which creates the small gene pools we worry about. I'll just go ahead an pick on azureus again. There is NO justification that I have seen for there being more than one "line" of azureus. The azureus all came in from the same place. And yet I see ads for mulitple different lines or morphs or whatever nonsense they are being called these days. All this serves to do is to slice up the genetic diversity of this captive population into thinner pieces. So I think that before we can start using imports to bolster the genetics of captive populations, we need to first get our own house in order and get a lot smarter about the way we manage the genetics of the animals we already have.

To recap. I think the dangers of genetic depression are overblown and I think we do a really crappy job of managing the genetics of the frogs we already have.

Edit: I don't want to give the impression in the above that I don't think narrow gene pools are not something we should worry about. Loss of genetic diversity can cause serious populations in wild populations and in captive ones as well. But I don't think it is a crisis for captive PDF populations.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rob, 
I did not interpret your post in that manner I was making a commentary on the (not that infrequent) communications I receive when any Zoo will not release a "desirable" species such as some color morphs of pumilio, or Atelopus. 
I have never had a complaint over the failure of a Zoo to surplus auratus or any other really common morph. We only get complaints about rare or hard to get animals. Imagine the message that this is sending to the people who make the rules at AZA or USF&W. 

As a further point, the release of animals to the private sector is also a favorite attack point by animal rights organizations who point out that Zoos are not participating in conservation but breeding animals for the pet trade and thus Zoos should not be patronized. 

Ed


----------



## DaFrogMan (Oct 8, 2004)

bbrock said:


> I think the extinction vortex is more theoretical than real. The closest I can think are the Florida panthers which are all now as genetically related as brothers and sisters. However, it was habitat destruction that put them to that point. Same goes for cheetah that underwent a natural severe genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago yet continued to hold on just fine until humans starter persucuting them with modern weapons and fragmenting their habitat. American bison, pronghorn antelope, and grizzly bear have all gone through incredibly severe genetic bottlenecks within the last 150 years and yet have rebounded to genetically robust populations.


I agree and disagree with Brent. I don't keep up with the panther situation in Florida, but I think they would be classified by many to be in an extinction vortex. In order for the panthers to be saved it will take a massive conservation intervention movement by humans. From what I understand there are already people involved and they are back on the rebound, but I feel this is due to our intervention.

Also, I know here in Iowa, there is a conservation reservation for the bison set up for the purpose of monitoring a breeding population of bison.

I don't think it matters whether the population size was reduced by habitat destruction or by us taking a small portion of the frogs into the pet trade: once a species gets to a specific point, and genetic diversity gets too low, it falls into the "vortex."

If we were to cut off importation completely, I feel that some of the less common species of darts could eventually fall into this vortex, and when/if they do, the only way of diversifying the population would be to import a large number of frogs.

I think it would be better to only import a small number of frogs anually - just enough to bring some gene flow into the captive stock, but not enough to hurt the wild populations. We won't need to do it with popular species like azureus, cobalts, leucs, auratus, etc - all of our captive stocks of those frogs are large enough that they are very diverse. But we should bring in just a few of the less popular frogs just to avoid getting to the point where we need to import a large amount of them to save our captive stock, because it will be hard on the wild stock.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2005)

This may be a stupid question, but has any endangered species ever been saved/brought back from extinction by hobbyists or people in the pet trade? The only semi-example I've seen here are tortoises. I'm not siding anywhere really, but I was just wondering if there were many clear examples that might be enlightening.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

DaFrogMan said:


> I agree and disagree with Brent. I don't keep up with the panther situation in Florida, but I think they would be classified by many to be in an extinction vortex. In order for the panthers to be saved it will take a massive conservation intervention movement by humans. From what I understand there are already people involved and they are back on the rebound, but I feel this is due to our intervention.
> 
> Also, I know here in Iowa, there is a conservation reservation for the bison set up for the purpose of monitoring a breeding population of bison.
> 
> I don't think it matters whether the population size was reduced by habitat destruction or by us taking a small portion of the frogs into the pet trade: once a species gets to a specific point, and genetic diversity gets too low, it falls into the "vortex."


I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. What I'm saying is that the loss of genetic diversity has not been a factor in the decline or recovery of any of these species with the exception of the FL panther. That does not mean that conservation of wild species does not have to manage genetics. But the evidence of species swirling into oblivion after their genetic diversity reaches some minimum threshold exists almost entirely on paper and with very few real example. The FL panter example is really they only good one I can think of and cheetah are a close second. I think some other big cats in the world will qualify soon as their habitat continues to get fragmented. But in all cases, the driving force is actually habitat destruction, not loss of genetic diversity. The diversity issue really has more to do with recovering the population. Yes, the FL panthers are so genetically related that they were seeing low birth rates and high infant mortality. The solution was to introduce a couple of TX panther males to simulate the gene flow that would have occured naturally before habitat fragmentation isolated the FL population so severely. Here is another extreme example of the resilience of populations to recover from severe genetic bottlenecks. Whooping cranes not long ago were down to 14 individuals. That's it. There are now well over 200 wild and free whooping cranes in North America that all decended from these 14. Of course there is concern about the genetic diversity of the population but even getting down to 14 birds from the original thousands did not produce this theoretical vortex.




> If we were to cut off importation completely, I feel that some of the less common species of darts could eventually fall into this vortex, and when/if they do, the only way of diversifying the population would be to import a large number of frogs.


I think that capturing as much of the natural genetic diversity as possible is good for captive populations but as I've said, the evidence for this vortex is really scetchy. If we were able to incorporate all of the individuals of the rare species into captive lines, then I doubt we would ever see this vortex effect. What we WOULD see is a captive population that is less diverse than their wild counterparts.



> I think it would be better to only import a small number of frogs anually - just enough to bring some gene flow into the captive stock, but not enough to hurt the wild populations. We won't need to do it with popular species like azureus, cobalts, leucs, auratus, etc - all of our captive stocks of those frogs are large enough that they are very diverse. But we should bring in just a few of the less popular frogs just to avoid getting to the point where we need to import a large amount of them to save our captive stock, because it will be hard on the wild stock.


I would agree with this IF the wild imports can really be incorporated into existing lines and not just used to start new ones. I don't even think the numbers being imported would have to be necessarily small. There are many good reasons to import frogs just as there are many good reasons not to do it. Some wild populations can probably sustain a significant harvest without significantly impacting the wild population. But it requires monitoring to know these things which is time consuming and expensive. But sure, I would agree that imports to increase genetic diversity is one of the good reasons to import but I would not go so far as saying that if we don't import, our rare captive frogs are going to spiral into extinction because of lack of genetic diversity.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Quijano said:


> This may be a stupid question, but has any endangered species ever been saved/brought back from extinction by hobbyists or people in the pet trade? The only semi-example I've seen here are tortoises. I'm not siding anywhere really, but I was just wondering if there were many clear examples that might be enlightening.


It's a great question. The list would be short but a couple example I can think of. Peregrine falcons were restored to much of their former range after the DDT crash using hacking techniques developed and performed by falconers. These falconers worked closely with wildlife biologists to both develop the techniques and train the biologists. Another example is American bison. Charles Goodnight and Pablo Jones were two private entrepeneurs who independently took it upon themselves to save the bison. They started collecting what few bison remained and bred them on their ranches. With the exception of the Yellowstone bison, almost all bison alive in North America today are the decendents of these two private herds. In Europe there are many herp species being mantained in private hands but within conservation breeding programs. I don't know of any successful reintroductions but that doesn't mean they haven't happened. The killifish breeders also have a conservation breeding network but I don't know what their involvement with official conservation efforts are.


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Quijano said:


> This may be a stupid question, but has any endangered species ever been saved/brought back from extinction by hobbyists or people in the pet trade? The only semi-example I've seen here are tortoises. I'm not siding anywhere really, but I was just wondering if there were many clear examples that might be enlightening.


Here is an interesting quote:


> Animals that do survive in captivity are domesticated to some degree. Kohane and Parsons (1988) stated, "under normal circumstances, domestication would initially involve selection for behavioral traits such as docility and early breeding..." As herpetoculturists we see this in many species. The Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) illustrates both docility and early breeding in captive individuals. The process of domestication acts on the individual as well as the captive population (Kohane and Parsons 1988; Price 1984). Therefore, the captive breeding stock for conservation projects have been artificially selected for an unnatural environment. This selection process is repeated in a less forgiving environment when the animal is again released into the wild. Shelford's law can explain why Dodd and Seigel (1991) did not find any successful conservation programs which involved breeding animals outside their natural environment. To examine the herpetoculture-conservation relationship further, we must consider the genetics of the captive population.


Read the rest here:
http://www.anapsid.org/conserv.html

Another angle is the fact that CITES has a mechanism built in for a scientific authority to work in conjunction with the regulatory enforces. In the US both of these are USFW. I don't know if there is a possibility for the scientific authority to be species specific, but that could be an option. My opinion is that integration with the CITES folks, a breeder network like Brent mentioned would be optimal, and scrutiny over all the stuff that goes on from collection to purchase are the way to go.

Marcos


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Blort said:


> Read the rest here:
> http://www.anapsid.org/conserv.html


Thanks for posting that Marcos. It is excellent. Anyone interested in conservation breeding programs should read that. I've bookmarked it as it should save me a lot of typing in the future.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*You know.*

Hey Gang,
Having read the posts on this topic I have to say that all of you put some pretty good stuff down on the board. We have a lot of people on Dendroboard who are just class act people, and wrote some really intelligent postings pro and con. It seemed to me that most of us prefer not to import, would prefer to have the system changed for the sake of the frogs, but also believe that conservation, and species preservation is very important. 

The topic of zoo involvement was interesting to me, and some curious points were made. I was wondering what zoo's would think about hobbyist involvement the other way. 

Instead of the zoo handling the importation and possible distribution of frogs into capable breeder hands. What do you think about the hobbyist donating animals to the zoo? Understandably a difficult proposition for zoos to accept. Ed can weigh in on this one for sure. Give some frogs to the zoo for free to keep and breed as they wish. Zoos can turn around and distribute/contibute to other zoos, etc. The point is to just make the frogs visible and accessable to the public. Barring the animals safety of course (some animals need to rest and not be on display all the time). This gratis gesture would allow some zoo's to keep animals that they otherwise could not. The benefit to the breeder/keeper/hobbyist would allow these animals to be seen. I think that it is important for these animals to be viewed in public as much as possible. That way people can develop an understanding and appreciation (hopefully) of these great frogs. This is how to make people aware, and contribute to conservation, at least to think about it. Some frog displays at zoo's are ho hum, some are the stuff that unlimited budgets are made of. But most are somewhere in between. Donating frogs, food and plants to a zoo would hopefully help out the zoos limited resources. Dart frogs can be a draw for zoos. However, my opinion is that the display that makes a buzz gets all the funding *cough*Gorillasandpandabears*cough*. In turn I would also hope that the zoos would learn to view the hobbyist in a better light. There is so much potential in the relationship between the hobbyist and the academic institutions that are willing to display these creatures. In doing so once again the frogs will hopefully benefit by being representatives of their species, and giving us a stronger appreciation for them.

Whew! Hope I didn't come off like Jerry Springer's Final Thought or the ravings of a madman!
Dave[/i]


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 27, 2004)

If there was ever a time to have a hobby and zoo relationship, it's right now. I say that because our hobby is still young, innocent and largely untainted to a small degree. In other words, I see a lot of dendro hobbyist that are in it for the right reasons and are very concerned with conservation. I don't say this lightly as I have met a lot of you directly and indirectly and can overwhelmingly confirm this! This is not to say, however, that there isn't a dark capitalistic side lurking in the dirty shadow of our hobby. That being said, I for one would like to see a symbiotic relationship develop on a very small scale initially. Why not set something in motion before our hobby gives way to a mainstream ideology? In some regards, if not informally, it is occuring. Ed is an active dendro hobbyist that works at a zoo. He has been tirelessly versing me on some of the finer points of chytrid just because he cares! This is not a sermon just a thought. :wink:


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2005)

Ok, newb question:

What IS chytrid?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: You know.*



ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> Instead of the zoo handling the importation and possible distribution of frogs into capable breeder hands. What do you think about the hobbyist donating animals to the zoo?


This has actually been one of the beefs I've heard people raise about zoos. In the past, some zoos have been very willing to purchase or accept donations of frogs and other herps from private collectors. For some odd reason, the donors or sellers thought it was only fair for the zoos to reciprocate so they've gotten a little upset about the one-way exchange relationship between zoos and the private sector. I don't quite see it that way and thing anyone who presently expects zoos to reciprocate with an exchange of animals is not fully understanding the reality of how zoos have to work. It's a nice idea that you would think would bring good will between the two segments (zoos and private) but from what I have heard, it has done the opposite.

BTW, the first dart frogs I ever had were donated to me by a zoo.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2005)

Arachnid said:


> Ok, newb question:
> 
> What IS chytrid?


It is a fungus, that will kill your frogs if left untreated.
Here is a link about it http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0145.htm


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I have to sit here and think where to begin on this topic as it is not easy to summarize.....

First off people have to understand that most Zoos are somewhat individualistic when it comes to animal aquisition and disposition and most are pretty restrictive (partially due to AZA regulations and the fact that some animal rights groups readily use this to claim that all Zoos are doing is furthering the exotic animal trade). At AZA zoos the requirements do not make a distinction between aquiring or sending out a gorilla, a lion, a parrot, a frog or a cockroach. The regs are written to be a blanket reg requiring the regulations to be as comnprehensive as possible to cover the most restrictive group (invariably primates). 
Most Zoos will require at least some paperwork and a decision by a committee before accepting or dispositioning any animals. For example if I wanted to adopt a auratus from my employer, I would need to show pictures of the enclosure, have something to indicate what will happen to the animals if anything happens to me, my vets contact information, a copy of any required permits, a statement to indicate what I intend to do with any offspring from the animal as well as an agreement to retain the animals in my personal possession for at least two years, and be willing to provide annual updates on the frog at the request of the Zoo and if the animal passes away to provide documentation of the death of the animal as well as the reason for the death and finally I would have to provide documentation showing that I was able to care for the frog. (All in all, I consider it too big a hassel when I can purchase an auratus at IAD.).

As for donating frogs to a Zoo, this is a good idea but it depends on the Zoo and whether or not they have space to house the frogs (by the way we are looking for some female bastimentos if anyone has some extra and is willing to donate some......). The reason is that for every cage that is set up for dart frogs that is one less cage that may be needed for another species that is in critical need. If you took a tour of my frog area, the vast majority of the cages are taken up by Wyoming toads (Bufo baxteri) and Panamanian Golden Toads (Atelopus zeteki) as we are a major holding institution for both species. 
In addition, you will probably need to be able to prove that the frogs are legally aquired. (This may be problomatic with some species such as castenoticus). 

Because of the paperwork requirements and the publicity issues, this is why donating frogs to a Zoo is not necessarily a good method to try and get reciprication from Zoos as the accredidation requirements make this very difficult to accomplish (typically this only occurs with species that really need a boost in genetic diversity). 

It is a good idea and I don't want to discourage it as right now a lot of Zoos really do need the help (a lot of Zoos are scaling back on a lot of things up to and including layoffs due to revenue losses since the stock market dropped and 9/11 reduced the number of people visiting Zoos). At least one Zoo with a huge amphibian emphasis (Detroit) is facing large cutbacks. 

Ed


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> For some odd reason, the donors or sellers thought it was only fair for the zoos to reciprocate so they've gotten a little upset about the one-way exchange relationship between zoos and the private sector


I hope I did not come off that way. My point was promotion of the hobby by contributing to zoo, and benefiting only in the knowledge obtained by study of the donated frog in the zoo. While it's true that certain zoo's, aquariums, and botanical gardens are hurting for resources, some are blessed with many talented herpetolgists, veterinarians, and keepers. Without a doubt we still have a lot to learn about these animals. And I am constantly learning things in the 9+ years I have been keeping darts. There is a gem of knowledge in the strangest of places. I think zoos are a place that can contribute a great deal.

My thoughts are that by making the frogs more accessable to the public people can develop an appreciation of them. Getting seen means becoming aware (at least I hope it does). The more positive experiences people have with dart frogs with better off the hobby will be. My suggestion to donate frogs is strictly for the betterment of the frog community, not in the hopes of swapping species. But it should be noted that some hobbyists can contribute a lot for zoos (knowledge, feeding, breeding etc) and some zoos get that. If it were more of a standard practice, would that not be a good thing?

Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Dave,
I didn't take it that way but its hard to discuss the rest without including dispositions in the mix. 

One of the other items to consider is that if someone donates frogs it may be possible to include a small sign discussing a local herp group (or groups) or a resource to use to find out more about a species. 


Ed


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 27, 2004)

That is one of the reasons I really wanted to start the Mid-Atlantic Dendro Club with Mike. I want to give people out there an outlet to learn about these creatures. Even more, educating people beyond just a hobby is the reason I want to formalize these meeting to a degree. Ed, if you can make it to another meeting, maybe you can cover the dreaded topic of disease and treatment.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Dave,
I would like to make another meeting but it will be hard for me until probably after July as we are about to enter into contract negotiations ((and I am on the Union Team) so I will be busy for awhile. 

If it is close to me, I will definetly attempt to set up a time to make it. 
I will be at IAD and will be doing a workshop on amphibian nutrition...


Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

ED's_Fly_Meat_Inc said:


> > For some odd reason, the donors or sellers thought it was only fair for the zoos to reciprocate so they've gotten a little upset about the one-way exchange relationship between zoos and the private sector
> 
> 
> I hope I did not come off that way. My point was promotion of the hobby by contributing to zoo, and benefiting only in the knowledge obtained by study of the donated frog in the zoo.


No Dave, you didn't come off that way. What you said is a good idea but I've talked directly with people who have donated animals to zoos and have vowed not to do it again because they "got nothing in return". I don't agree with that attitude but it is reality. I'd love to see zoos and hobbyists be able to scratch each other's backs but there are personalities involved....


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 27, 2004)

Ed,

Good luck on the contract negotiations! I look forward to listening to your discussion and seeing you again!


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

*Yep*



> One of the other items to consider is that if someone donates frogs it may be possible to include a small sign discussing a local herp group (or groups) or a resource to use to find out more about a species.


Exactly Ed.
Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Some Zoos have small posting areas that clubs can also use (we don't though but probably should), but the people in the club need to make sure that the contact info is correct as the public will complain to the Zoo resulting in the removal of that information and a hesitency to post anything from that group again. 

On the topic of clubs and groups, it seems to me that the ones that actually produce a newsletter or flyer seem to fair better than those that do not (or is this just me). 

Ed


----------



## aneides (Apr 12, 2005)

*remember what your doing*

If someone has already made this point forgive me. I just wanted to put out there what I percieve is happening when a person purchases a wild-caught frog. 

Generally, a distributer will hire a collector in situ to collect frogs. That collector will in turn hire an untold number of locals who will assist in the collection of these animals. 

The animals are collected and stored en mass for X amount of days or weeks until sufficient numbers have been collected for a export to be profitable. 

Conditions in situ certainly vary but it is not likely that the frog you eventually recieve lived in the conditions you would have liked it to before you got it. 

The frogs that survive are shipped to a wholesaler in the US and then distributed. 

The thing that we must all except when weighing the pros and cons of wild caught versus captive bred or no frog at all is that for every one wild caught frog we buy an unknown (and probably very high number especially when purchasing from a distributer who got a shipment (or part of a shipment) that numbered in the thousands) of frogs has died in order for us to have the one we bought. Someone mentioned earlier that buying a frog that has a 50:50 shot at making it wasn't worth it. Well just remember that the one you got with the 50:50 shot was one of the strong ones that made it. 

I don't have the solution for this and everyone has to decide what they value for themselves but I would like to suggest that it would not be too excessive to make distributors and collectors more accountable. But we have to be willing to pay for it. Personally I would rather pay 500 dollars for (or more realistically not have) a frog than 20 dollars for one knowing that 25 of its cohorts died in the process necessary for me to get it. The best way to do this is using the markets to force smaller, more frog friendly collections (if we really think we need wc anyway). I don't know how to get this done but I think it could help not only our hobby but also the wild populations if we could.

Aneides


----------

