# Chytrid Fungus - Lacey Act - USFWS - SAVE THE FROGS!



## savethefrogs

The US Fish & Wildlife Service recently solicited comments on its proposal to list amphibians as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act UNLESS certified free of chytrid fungus. 

You can read the letter I submitted to the USFWS here:
http://savethefrogs.com/chytrid/pdf/Kriger-letter-to-USFWS.pdf

Feel free to distribute as you wish.

Dr. Kerry Kriger
Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist
www.savethefrogs.com
www.savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger


----------



## Vermfly

Thanks for the slap in the face. I know your mission only involves protecting wild frogs but there is no need to come to our forum and rub your comment in our face. I will never give a cent to your organization and I would urge everyone on this board to do the same.


----------



## Chris Miller

Don't forget that this "scientist" wants total animal liberation just like PETA and The HSUS. He admitted it in a previous thread.


----------



## Woodsman

Given the insatiable desire for wild-collected frogs, including the many smuggled frogs owned buy hobbyists, and our complete inability to control our appetite for the same, it isn't surprising that the conservation community and the hobby community would be at odds over this issue. If we can't police ourselves, perhaps the goverment will have to take up the slack.

Richard.


----------



## JJuchems

Woodsman said:


> ...If we can't police ourselves, perhaps the goverment will have to take up the slack.
> 
> Richard.





> "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin


We do not need more government involvement, that very thought will continue more legislation like HR669 or S373.


----------



## zBrinks

Kerry,

Why do you continue to post on a hobbyist forum, dedicated to the captive care and breeding of animals, when this is in direct conflict with your own beliefs?

"I support putting frogs in tanks as much as I support putting humans in tanks, if that makes me crazy, I'm fine with people calling me that."

I will call you crazy, as this equates to a church depending on prostitutes for donations. Why do you continue to seek donations from a group that you would like dissolved?

"80%+ of pet frogs sold are taken from the wild"

Where exactly do you get this figure from? I could not find it anywhere. I know all of the amphibians in my collection are captive bred.

"American Bullfrogs are a common pet, and Schloegel's paper showed they have much higher rates of infection than other frogs. Whether they were destined for the plate or the tank has little bearing on the fact that they are clear disease vectors."

American bullfrogs are not a common pet, by any means - I am unclear as to where you gathered that idea. The paper in question was analyzing bullfrogs 'farmed' for food. These frogs are in no way comparable to animals bred in the pet trade. When results of a survey for chytrid in captive frogs is provided to you, you respond:

"Those Treewalkers results are pretty meaningless to me as I cannot see the experimental design or any methods."

You dismiss results that conflict with your skewed views on the morality of animal keeping out of hand. You did not inquire about the experimental design or methods - you immediately ruled them as meaningless. 

My question to you, Dr. Kriger, is why continue the facade? Your intent is to obviously make owning the animals we hold dear illegal (or at least very difficult) - why not come out and say that?


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Woodsman said:


> Given the insatiable desire for wild-collected frogs, including the many smuggled frogs owned buy hobbyists, and our complete inability to control our appetite for the same, it isn't surprising that the conservation community and the hobby community would be at odds over this issue. If we can't police ourselves, perhaps the goverment will have to take up the slack.
> 
> Richard.


The government? Hell they can't even keep our borders secure.

This Dr. Kriger, *I don't like him one bit.* If he is trying to destroy the hobby that we all love, that this forum supports, why not just ban him?


----------



## johnc

You're just helping that moron promote himself and his agenda every time you post his name and his organization's name. /ignore and preferably, /ban


----------



## earthfrog

I believe that Kerry is trying to help out; however, the solution in no way applies to dendrobatids kept responsibly and in fact can harm the long-term viability of whole species of animals. 
Conservation happens wherever animals are kept, and since a zoo/laboratory is not a complete collection of every dendrobatid we need to save, the hobbyist becomes the recourse when these sources are either exhausted or incomplete. 

Several more thoughts come to mind on this issue:

1) When dart frogs are owned by an adequately educated and/or registered member of a conservation group, said owner has likely registered their frogs with the organization and is aware of chytrid and its risks to the environment, informed on current husbandry skills and even private chytrid testing, and is also actively working to breed the frogs to ensure their survival even if their own collection becomes decimated by chytrid later on.

2) Said frogs can be expensive, and as such are not frivolously handled---e.g., necropsied for analysis of cause of death vs. "flushed down toilets". The dendrobatid hobbyist considers these animals precious, even as though they were their own children or family in many cases, and so they are viewed differently from just any 'pet store find'. 

3) *Expensive and rare animals, when trade is restricted, tend to become increasingly, illegally smuggled and later on, endangered or extinct animals when they are not allowed to be traded legally, thus possibly worsening the problem with the spread of chytrid through the sheer influx in animal smuggling and irresponsibility.*


----------



## johnc

When will you understand that you can't have a rational discussion with this man.


----------



## earthfrog

johnc said:


> When will you understand that you can't have a rational discussion with this man.


I don't have much experience with him. Maybe that will not be possible; however, others will read this and learn.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Is there a way we can all block this joker so we don't have to read any of his propaganda anymore?


----------



## Dartfrogfreak

Umm Ill get a formal response together.. when I can type a logical rebuttle with using the fword



Todd


----------



## Dartfrogfreak

ummmm no comment for now


----------



## earthfrog

savethefrogs said:


> The US Fish & Wildlife Service recently solicited comments on its proposal to list amphibians as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act UNLESS certified free of chytrid fungus.
> 
> You can read the letter I submitted to the USFWS here:
> http://savethefrogs.com/chytrid/pdf/Kriger-letter-to-USFWS.pdf
> 
> Feel free to distribute as you wish.
> 
> Dr. Kerry Kriger
> Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist





> The *Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) OPPOSED* the recent Defenders of Wildlife petition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list all amphibians as injurious animals under the Lacy Act, unless certified as Chytrid Fungus free.
> 
> *The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) OPPOSED* the recent Defenders of Wildlife petition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list all amphibians as injurious animals under the Lacy Act, unless certified as Chytrid Fungus free.
> 
> *The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) OPPOSED* the recent Defenders of Wildlife petition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list all amphibians as injurious animals under the Lacy Act, unless certified as Chytrid Fungus free.
> 
> *The United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) OPPOSED* the recent Defenders of Wildlife petition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list all amphibians as injurious animals under the Lacy Act, unless certified as Chytrid Fungus free.
> 
> All of the above organizations have said that such a proposal would have very negative consequences for our hobby.
> 
> I would suspect that most of the members here on Dendroboard are OPPOSED to the recent Defenders of Wildlife petition to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list all amphibians as injurious animals under the Lacy Act, unless certified as Chytrid Fungus free.



Since most major organizations are opposed to it, it likely will do more harm and actually worsen the spread of chytrid than help...(see the boldened part of my last post)
I took this from a similar thread and changed a few words to fit this thread, for others' benefit...


----------



## Dartfrogfreak

Indeed this would have devasting effect on our hobby and many others.

I conclude that this proposal would devastate the petstores that deal with amphibians and many breeders as well as online vendors that make their living off amphibians.

This would indeed not only be devastating to our hobby and other amphibian keepers.. but it indeed would be a devastating blow to Americas economy potentially destroying our already troubled economy. I can only conclude that this guy hate America


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Dartfrogfreak said:


> Indeed this would have devasting effect on our hobby and many others.
> 
> I conclude that this proposal would devastate the petstores that deal with amphibians and many breeders as well as online vendors that make their living off amphibians.
> 
> This would indeed not only be devastating to our hobby and other amphibian keepers.. but it indeed would be a devastating blow to Americas economy potentially destroying our already troubled economy. I can only conclude that this guy hate America



Dartfrogfreak, your logic is impeccable! Real Americans keep "freedom frogs" lol. 

This just reminds me of finding a pirhana in a pond and wanting to ban the keeping of all tropical fish.


----------



## earthfrog

Issuing a "ban"-daid doesn't remedy the disease. It only makes the infection grow worse...

For instance, we don't ban interstate human travelers before they are certified free of MRSA or tuberculosis or other disease---it's not economically feasible---so the only solution would be to cease interstate travel...think of the harm that would cause, not financially alone, but relationally---and culturally.
In the case of frogs kept for conservation in captivity it may have implications for their very sustainability.

However, in this case, chytrid IS ALREADY spread throughout most locales here in the US, am I right? So what remains is only a risk for potential harm to frogs in general, right? Is there any place that is so far certified 'chytrid free'? I think not...correct me if I am wrong and assuming incorrectly...


----------



## fleshfrombone

This position smacks of fascism. I'm so tired of people who don't like something because they don't understand it and trying to affect policy to make it illegal. If you don't like something don't be a part of it. I'm curious how the private keeping of amphibians in anyway increases the spread of chytrid. As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying hospitals carrying flu vaccines helps to spread the flu. Take your silly crusade elsewhere please.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

All the links on his post appear to be dead.

Man, you guys are good!

John


----------



## zBrinks

I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread - everything that needs to be said has been. 

Kerry, if you'd like to respond, feel free to pm me and I'll post it here.


----------

