# More controversy and more fun discussing it



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay,
So there are a few frogs in our hobby that have been brought in by nefarious ways. I.E. smugglers, pirates, what have you. Supply and demand. Someone once told me that at midnight, right after the drugs come off the plane in the Florida cornfields, then come the parrots, seeds and frogs. Perhaps you have even seen them, or perhaps you even own a few of these beauties. Whether we want to believe it or not, they are here D. mysteriosus, D. lehmanni, Atelopus, etc. Really hot frogs. So I ask the board. What would it hurt to legalize these frogs that are currently in the states? I am not advocating one way or another (I have none of the above mentioned frogs), I just am curious what YOU think the consequenses would be if the agencies that be lifted the restrictions on D. mysteriosus in the states?

Good?
Bad?
Indifferent?

Lets have some fun.
Dave


----------



## TopGunJags01 (Jul 31, 2004)

How can we legalize these frogs? I live in miami and I know people who have smuggled all kinds of drugs in with success. So i know what your saying isnt garbage but what can we do and what will it take to keep these frogs in the states.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Just a quick thought: As far as mysteriosus, say the powers that be (from both countries) decided to allow 200 animals for the year to come in legally. I believe that the demand for them would be drastically reduced over the next year or so. From what I know about these animals they produce like animals from the tinc tribe. So initially the price would be sky high and in 2 years they would be everywhere. At this point I think most would find smuggling them not worth the effort.

In contrast, now we look at an animal like lehmanni. You could bring in thousands (assuming there are thousands to bring in) and squelch the demand for maybe a couple years. After say three years there will be, for all intents and purposes, none left in the hobby. A few breeders will have kept enough alive to establish a few pairs but for the most part I don't think breeders will produce enough animals to keep up with the demand. So in this case, the demand on wild populations will still be high and the smugglers will keep bringing them in. 

Just my opinions based on what I've seen in the past.


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

If we could find an honest exporter to c.b. or farm raise them in Peru with little impact on the wild population it would be great.


----------



## TopGunJags01 (Jul 31, 2004)

If d. mysteriosus breed like wild animals, like rmelancon said, then in a matter of 3 years wouldnt they be like the auratus, very commen and inexpensive. I think it would be cool that we would have a new dart frog in the hobby but wheres all the fun in the hobby as in keeping rare frogs, frogs that only a hand full of people in the USA have.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Rare legal frogs remain rare for the most part due to their demanding natures and difficult husbandry i.e. Histrionicus, Retics, Fants. I think it would be a great thing for both the frogs and the hobby if new, hardy, easy to breed species could be sustainably introduced.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> I think it would be a great thing for both the frogs and the hobby if new, hardy, easy to breed species could be sustainably introduced.


I say yes and no. Rob makes a interesting point on lehmanni. Some frogs do not belong in the hobby. Not that Rob is saying that, but there are some really hard to breed frogs out there. And they are hard to breed for a reason. They have very specific requirements that we may never figure out. I understand, after talking to some researchers, that granuliferous might be a somewhat migratory species. Searching out conditions in the rainforest for one reason or another. How can we replicate that in a vivarium? On the other hand, there was a time when some very common frogs were not obtainable and in the right hands people made them available, and I think they should be.

And if mysteriosus do become legalized in the US as it seems they might. Will that also legalize the ones that are already in the US? And if not, is that a reason to continue to make them illegal? Another issue all together. Good posts.
Dave


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

I guess that would be the double-edged sword. Like I said before, there are, I'm sure, many species that are currently illegal that could be successfully bred in large numbers in captivity, which would be a plus. But then there are other morphs, which would be almost impossible to suitably house in a Viv. If we were to legalize all frogs currently in the states, it would likely lead to wild collecting of the more rare, difficult species for export on a greater scale, which would deplete wild populations of substantial numbers. It would be the same situation as the Histos in the 90s, where despite the massive influx of animals at rock bottom prices, they still managed to dwindle to almost nonexistent numbers due to their wide availability to the inexperienced (think pet store patrons). Of course there are ways to differentiate between what would be beneficial inclusions as well as the species that should be left alone, but who would be in a position of power to do so that has the necessary knowledge and connections to make that choice?


----------



## ChrisMc (Mar 7, 2004)

Im curious, does anyone know how many are in private collections in the US? Ive seen them in Europe but wonder how many have made it here and are they breeding?

As far a legalizing I agree with Rob that mysteriosis is a good candidate over any eggfeeder, but I dont know the repercussion that could come from it.


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

There are some in the US, and breeding as well. I know of a few people, and some used to be quite open about it, until Fish and Game started craking down. They aren't the type of frog you can call about and get on a list for, unless you know the person quite well, when you ask do you have myst. the answer is going to be no, even if they do have them. They are a great looking frog, but to me they aren't worth the trouble, I am not sure what they would charge you with, but I have a hunch they would try to make a smuggling charge stick, and the fines and jail time it can carry is a prohibiting factor for most. As far as legalization goes, it would be most likely establsihed fairly quickly and the allure of keeping it would go away after awhile. As for lehmanni, histos, grannies, etc....


----------



## steelcube (Mar 17, 2004)

deleted


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

As I read Dave's original question, he asks if it would be good to legalize the frogs ALREADY smuggled into the country. The answer is that it would be irresponsible and stupid to do such a thing. Basically what this would do is legitimize smuggling and launder the frogs that are here. It would provide an INCENTIVE to smuggle frogs because then there would be an expectation that once the frogs safely entered U.S. territory, then they would become "clean" and legitimate so why not just try to smuggle as much as you can in?

The above is a VERY different question than whether some species should be made available for legal import. The reasons to allow or not allow export/import of certain frogs are quite complex so you can't make a blanket statement. The points about the ease of captive propagation should be taken into consideration (like mysteriosis) but what about the species' vulnerabilty to collection or other conservation needs in the wild? All of these need to be weighed. Of course some of the bans are pure politics and have little to do with conservation and those factors can be important too. I fully support trying to open up legal means of importation that places the wild conservation of the frogs as the top priority and the welfare of the animals imported as the next priority but there is no way that I could support any sort of blanket amnesty for animals illegally smuggled into the country.


----------



## ChrisMc (Mar 7, 2004)

Since this species is threatened, should we sit back and allow another frog to become extinct? Im not advocating breaking the law, but politicians dont know or care enough about wildlife legislation to give a crap except for lobbyist support. 

I hope INIBICO gets in gear soon, but Im sure it will be a long hard fight to get in the mysteriosis legally. This project probably controls the fate of this species in the wild.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*have some fun*

I think you can look at the Castaneoticus situation to see a parallel, Casteneoticus are not legal for hobbyists to have, they are here strictly for research purposes. The Oklahoma City Zoo would love to have all of them confiscated from all collections (even other institutions), yet there are dozens of hobbyists with Casti's in their collections, is this good or bad? Casti's are even openly sold by many on public forums, again good or bad?
I feel it would be great if all species would be farmed and regulated so that wild populations would always be protected, The unfortunate fact is many species will probably go away in the wild before enough or any are ever exported so that they may be propogated in captivity. Most of these countries are so poor that resources are held in as little regard as the poorer members of their populations.
It's too bad that red tape can't be pushed aside so that threatened species can be put into programs like some of the Atelopus now are, but like many of the Atelopus species already they will be gone before they allow those that care to act.
mark


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

ChrisMc said:


> Since this species is threatened, should we sit back and allow another frog to become extinct? Im not advocating breaking the law, but politicians dont know or care enough about wildlife legislation to give a crap except for lobbyist support.
> 
> I hope INIBICO gets in gear soon, but Im sure it will be a long hard fight to get in the mysteriosis legally. This project probably controls the fate of this species in the wild.


Of course we shouldn't sit back and let these frogs go extinct which is exactly why we should NOT legalize smuggled frogs. By doing so you are basically handing an economic incentive for the illegal and unregulated exploitation of these animals in the wild. The fate of this, or any other, frog does not rest on whether or not we are allowed to have them in our living rooms. Captive breeding for conservation is a VERY difficult and complex proposition and it won't be done without careful regulation and oversight of professional conservationists and scientist. Whether or not hobbyists have a role to play in these breeding efforts will depend in part on whether we quit trying to use the Noah's Arc concept as an excuse for keeping illegal frogs.

Mark brought up castis which are an interesting and completely different set of circumstances which are more similar to the status of azureus. It's my understanding the castis were not illegally smuggled frogs that have been laundered. Rather, these were frogs legally imported from Brazil and placed in acredited collections. The offspring of those frogs were mistakenly released to the hobby in violation of the import agreement. I think there are good arguments on both sides about whether or not these frogs should just be made legal but in my mind the paramount deciding factor should be that any action taken should not provide incentive for illegal and unregulated collection of animals from the wild. I honestly don't understand how there can be a leap of logic from deciding that a country is too poor or too incompitent to conserve their frogs so the solution must be to just steal them from the wild? That's crazy! The solution is to support conservation work in the area and do what we can to support conervation-based markets for these frogs while discouraging illegal and unregulated rape and pillage collection. Just remember that the last dodo egg was stepped on by a museum collector clamouring to get their specimens while there was still a chance.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*have some fun*

Brent if you thought I suggested frogs should be taken because countries are too poor to protect their resources you need to read what I wrote. In many instances these countries allow development with little regard to wildlife. Regulated and unregulated development of land where dart frogs occur many times is happening so that some poor memebers of a community can try to scratch out a living. I have seen massive chuncks of rain forest cut down to create cow pastures where Lehmanni occur, their range grows more restricted all of time based on this. There is no regard for the frogs or their fate, even though they are protected by their own countries laws.
I just find it very unfortunate that under these circumstances red tape many times prevents the scientific community from going to study, protect and create some type of controlled breeding project for these species/areas.
Mark[/i]


----------



## fleenor1 (Feb 18, 2005)

I just found a Canadian Website that says that they are planning on exporting mysteriosus soon.
Here is the link:
http://www.belowwater.com/fish/poison-a ... index.html
Thought that you guys would like to see this.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*have some fun*

Unfortunately that has been up since 2003, hopefully this project will happen.
Mark


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Sean Stewart has some info on his involvement with the INIBICO project, and talks about possibly having Mysteriosus in the US as soon as this Summer.
http://www.herpetologic.net/ <--- in the frogs section.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: have some fun*



markpulawski said:


> Brent if you thought I suggested frogs should be taken because countries are too poor to protect their resources you need to read what I wrote. In many instances these countries allow development with little regard to wildlife.


No Mark, that's not what I was suggesting at all. Sorry if it appeared that way. The only reason I mentioned your post was because I thought the example you posed with castis was a very interesting one to ponder because I agree that legalization of these frogs probably pose little to no threat to conservation of the frogs in the wild. But I did want to mention that the casti situation is very different from legalizing smuggled frogs. But it is interesting that the above snippet I quoted from you also describes the situation in the U.S. Even when land use planners want to make sound decisions that consider wildlife needs, they rarely have the tools or information needed to make those decisions. So if the people who actually care can't do proper planning....

I will admit thought that my two posts on this thread have been intentionally pissy but not intended at anyone in paricular and not even entirely just in response to this thread. It is just a pent up frustration that I repeatedly see selfish and illegal activities justified in the name of "conservation" when in reality these actions work against us in multiple ways. One way is that I know for a fact that people professionally involved in wild frog conservation have developed a very bad opinion of the hobby based on such comments and rationalizations. And this reputation, more than anything else, has prevented us (the hobby) from being invited to the table for real captive breeding conservation projects.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2005)

*mystis*

I disagree Brent I was involved in a transaction with an accredited AZA institution .Altough it was not a Poison Arrow frog the same applies.I received a male Phelsuma Serraticauda through a breeding exchange the animal I received was in horrible condition it took me a month and a half to nurse the gecko back to reasonable health.Instead of being in public display they were housing him in a ten gallon tank.Alot of zoos get confiscated animals and dont have the funds or the means to care for them properly. They are set up to care for umbrella species.I think hobbiest like yourself are Imperative to the captive reproduction of rare and endangered animals.Besides when the zoo's can't take care of these animals who do they send them to the hobbiest.
Just my thoughts
later


----------



## bjdwa (Nov 26, 2004)

Mr. Brock,
perhaps the professional conservationists could be more effective if they tried to include more people in informed conservation instead of acting out on their perceived moral hegemony and excluding people based on "such comments and rationalizations". Don't you think that these types of arguments, even if based partially in self interest, are indicative of an active interest in the continued existence of species? Isn't that interest something that could be used for increasing positive conservation outcomes if applied in a different way? Perhaps instead of discounting everyone else, these so called professional conservationists could climb down off their respective soap boxes and spread evidence based conservation principles in a way that includes more people and less self aggrandizing diatribe. Personally, I think that being "intentionally pissy" is a counterproductive luxury conservationists can't afford, especially when so many people show a complete lack of interest in anything remotely resembling conservation.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I have to disagree with the statement that Zoos are setup to take care of umbrella species as opposed to other species. 
Zoos are choosing to focus on "umbrella" species as these species potentially allow for the preservation of habitat that potentially would then protect the maximal number species (a more bang for the buck mentality). 


I'm not sure I agree with keeping P. serraticauda in ten gallon tanks as a necessarily being the reason the gecko looked bad. (I used to raise this species in tens in the late 1980s). 

Yes a lot of Zoos get confiscated animals and the main reason they take them is otherwise the confiscating officials want to euthanize them so they can be sure the evidence is on hand when they take it to trial. The reason they go to Zoos is because until the owner from whom the animal was confiscated releases the animals the chain of custody cannot be broken. (In the Zoo, each animal has an individual id and tag that is consistantly tracked with paper work (for example if moved from one location to another internally in the building the moves are tracked. This is s.o.p. and is consistant allowing for custody to remain intact). This release can literally take years (and as a result consumes huge amounts of resources for the Zoos which is not recoverable). In the vast majority of confiscations I have seen, the animals have been in horrible condition and require huge investments of time, effort and money to treat and attempt to maximize the health of the animals. Often the confiscations contain large numbers of dead and/or dying animals (for example a shipment of Tylototriton. shanjing that was confiscated had over 800 animals in one box of which only about 200 were alive and all had huge sores and lesions all over thier bodies. The caudates were still looking horrible several years later due to scars and slow to heal lesions despite literally hundreds of dollars in treatment costs and tests to identify the causative organisms).

Actually, the days of AZA zoos sending any animals to the hobbyist are slowly ending (unless there is some major shift in philosophy in the near future). As the old regimes retire out of the Zoos, the Zoos are toeing the new tougher AZA policies more and more which makes it very very difficult to get animals into non AZA institutions as the new regimes now consider the responsibility of placing a green tree frog the same as placing a gorilla. 
The new forms ask questions like, pictures and/or blue prints of cages, who your vet is, what happens to any offspring (and selling them is a strike against you), what happens if you die, who gets the animals, and are you willing to guarantee possession of the animals for at least two years. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

bjdwa said:


> Mr. Brock,
> perhaps the professional conservationists could be more effective if they tried to include more people in informed conservation instead of acting out on their perceived moral hegemony and excluding people based on "such comments and rationalizations". Don't you think that these types of arguments, even if based partially in self interest, are indicative of an active interest in the continued existence of species? Isn't that interest something that could be used for increasing positive conservation outcomes if applied in a different way? Perhaps instead of discounting everyone else, these so called professional conservationists could climb down off their respective soap boxes and spread evidence based conservation principles in a way that includes more people and less self aggrandizing diatribe. Personally, I think that being "intentionally pissy" is a counterproductive luxury conservationists can't afford, especially when so many people show a complete lack of interest in anything remotely resembling conservation.


I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. To be clear, I am both a professional conservationist AND a hobbyist who thinks that we have a lot to offer to conservation efforts. I, and several others, have been trying to counter the popular notion among professional zoos that the hobby is driven by profit and self interest but it is a difficult task when the dialogue of hobbyists seem to reinforce their preconceived notions. Just look at the results of the poll on this thread. What do you suppose a professional would deduce about the hobby's attitudes on the illegal trade of these animals? 

In the several decades that I have been in the herp hobby, I have become increasingly unconvinced that the types of rationalizations that I get pissy about are really motivated by a deep desire to conserve the animals in the wild. I believe that almost all froggers do want to see these animals conserved in the wild but I also think there is a strong motivation to get new and pretty frogs into our collections which leads to some very flimsy justifications that these are a means to "protect the species". People who are really interested in conservation do not act out of ignorance. To be effective, truly interested people should take the time to become informed about the complexities of conservation issues before acting. The PDF hobby is dominated by very intelligent and well-meaning people but enough are willing to relax their ethics when a mysteriosis is dangled in front of their face to give the hobby a black eye and the smugglers incentive to pillage. I know that this comes across as arrogant and condescending but I've tried discussing these topics being a nice guy for years and the conversation never changes. I see the same justifications for smuggling and illegal trade repeated again and again. I also know people who have witnessed areas of PDF habitat completely trashed by smugglers. Why is it that we can be outraged over the actions of smugglers in the field but give a wink and a nod once a smuggled frog crosses into a captive collection? I completely realize that habitat destruction by other forces than the illegal pet trade is having a more devastating effect but it seems incredibly selfish to point fingers at "those other things" and ignore the impacts that our own hobby has on wild PDF populations. I strongly believe that the PDF hobby can, and does, do very positive things for wild frog conservation but we need to be honest that there is a dark side to this hobby that we should have no tolerance for. We will have even greater opportunity to contribute to wild frog conservation if we stand unified against illegal trafficking of these frogs and become recognized as important partners by zoos and affiliates developing captive breeding programs. But if you really want to make a difference, send donations to the conservation groups working in PDF areas or better yet, become directly involved in their projects.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: mystis*



wort said:


> I disagree Brent I was involved in a transaction with an accredited AZA institution .Altough it was not a Poison Arrow frog the same applies.I received a male Phelsuma Serraticauda through a breeding exchange the animal I received was in horrible condition it took me a month and a half to nurse the gecko back to reasonable health.Instead of being in public display they were housing him in a ten gallon tank.Alot of zoos get confiscated animals and dont have the funds or the means to care for them properly. They are set up to care for umbrella species.I think hobbiest like yourself are Imperative to the captive reproduction of rare and endangered animals.Besides when the zoo's can't take care of these animals who do they send them to the hobbiest.
> Just my thoughts
> later


I think we are on the same page here although I don't think zoos in any way are set up to care for "umbrella species". But aside from that, I never said that zoos take better care of the animals than we do. Zoos have the professional knowledge, and the political power, to design and implement true conservation breeding programs that preserve the genetic integrity of the animals being conserved. We hobbyist have the knowledge and skills needed to properly care for and breed these animals but we really suck at managing genetics of captive populations. There is a very good potential symbiotic relationship here. But zoos are understandably cautious. They don't want to put rare animals in the hands of someone who might illegally sell or trade the offspring for out to the hobby (which can make controlling smuggling difficult). They also don't want to put animals into a private collection that may be harbouring illegally obtained specimens. This is all just common sense. If we can show that we truly are placing the interests of conserving wild frogs first, then there should be a win-win situation. I even think that carefully planned release of captive bred stocks into the hobby could help stem the tide of smuggled animals but the operative words here are "carefully planned". Our first step is to show the professionals who are calling the shots that we are not just a band of thugs willing to do whatever it takes to get a rare frog in our collection.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2005)

*ed*

Your right it wasnt because he was housed in a ten gallon tank .That was just one piece of the puzzle.But you cant honestly tell me a ten gallon tank is suitable for a gecko that reaches almost six inches long at maturity.Maybe juveniles but not adults.
Cya

Also bbrock you make alot of valid points but unfortanatly money will always talk and you know the rest.


----------



## bgexotics (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't think zoos are always the best place for animals like dart frogs. I have seen better set-ups, especially frog ones, here on dendroboard. I know zoos can't afford to have a specialist for every kind of animal. I would sooner see threatened species placed in the hands of experienced breeders. I used to want to work at a zoo, but between the low pay and the burecracy, I don't think it is worth it. 

On a recent visit to the Cincy zoo, I was kinda disgusted by the display with the Giant Orange Tincs. It was barely planted and the humidity was too low. Surely it would not have been hard to put in a water feature and a few more plants? On the other hand some instutions have excellant displays. NAIB and Atlanta Botanical Gardens come to mind.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> The PDF hobby is dominated by very intelligent and well-meaning people but enough are willing to relax their ethics when a mysteriosis is dangled in front of their face to give the hobby a black eye and the smugglers incentive to pillage. I know that this comes across as arrogant and condescending but I've tried discussing these topics being a nice guy for years and the conversation never changes. I see the same justifications for smuggling and illegal trade repeated again and again. I also know people who have witnessed areas of PDF habitat completely trashed by smugglers. Why is it that we can be outraged over the actions of smugglers in the field but give a wink and a nod once a smuggled frog crosses into a captive collection? I completely realize that habitat destruction by other forces than the illegal pet trade is having a more devastating effect but it seems incredibly selfish to point fingers at "those other things" and ignore the impacts that our own hobby has on wild PDF populations.


As always Brent makes a great point, a sad but true one as well. I was thinking about this very thing. But here is the double edge of the sword. It is sad that the area that these frogs live in nature has been reduced to a cliff of broms. You can even see a photo of this famous area in one of Christman's Dendrobatidae books. I don't have all the answers, and I stand by saying that we don't need every species of dart frog in the hobby. But if these frogs do become legal would it not take away the desire to "pillage" from the fragile area that they live in? And in doing so protect these animals? I do not know.
Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

There is a big disjunct thought that I am seeing here, specifically the legalization of a frog "illegally" in the hobby will assist the survivial of that species in the wild (or even really in captivity).
Until/unless there is funding and education on site for the frogs in situe, the initial legalization can have no good impact on the frogs' situation as you will have suddenly created a demand that the cb population cannot supply to meet the demand. This places a heavy demand for smuggled animals and in the case of species from one or two very small and localized populations potential extinction from over collection. 

Contrary to many people's beliefs the captive reproduction of frogs has no value in "saving" a species or even potentially being considered for reintroduction unless the frogs in question are maintained in such a manner as to maximize genetic diversity while maintaining as close to possible natural behaviors (including those related to egg care and tadpole deposition). As a further issue, the frogs need to be kept in such a manner as to prevent possible transfer of foriegn pathogens into the animals that are being considered for repatriation/reintroduction. 

Wort, I don't want to hijack the thread or I would be happy to argue the spatial issues with a animal that can achieve a certain maximal size. 

The question I have about the Cincy Zoo is how long was that exhibit set up? I suspect that it hasn't had a chance to grow in yet. The reason that water features are often left out is with many species reproduction spontaneous or not is discouraged based on available holding space but again this is hijacking the thread. 

Some thoughts, 

Ed


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

I believe that there should be some sort of limited importation for most dendrobatids. Everyone knows that the majority of smuggled animals die because of the horrendous conditions they have to endure on their trip. Some of the legally imported Almirante and Man Creek pumilio didn't make it. How many do you think survive smuggling? Legally obtained captive bred stock will make smuggling less profitable. Who smuggles auratus and leucomelas? 

Will legalizing importation make it easier to legitimize the frogs already here? Of course it will. But these animals are already out of the wild gene pool. Whether they get legitimized or not, they are still in the same place: in captivity. Legalizing importation and captive breeding will help ensure that people have a healthy, environmentally friendly alternative to smuggled animals where 80% of the group will die because of transport.

Like most animals, darts produce far more young than they need to replace themselves. Remember, only two offspring need to survive to breeding age to hold the population steady. Even fussy egg feeders will raise more than two young in their lifetime. I'm not talking about in captivity, I mean in the wild. If people can grow the population by providing better conditions where more young survive, then the young could be harvested for exportation without harm to the wild population.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Arklier said:


> I believe that there should be some sort of limited importation for most dendrobatids. Everyone knows that the majority of smuggled animals die because of the horrendous conditions they have to endure on their trip. Some of the legally imported Almirante and Man Creek pumilio didn't make it. How many do you think survive smuggling? Legally obtained captive bred stock will make smuggling less profitable. Who smuggles auratus and leucomelas?


I think the conversation is starting to zero in on the pros and cons of legalizing frogs but there are still some things I don't think are being considered. First, we can't make the assumption that legalizing captive frogs will automatically lead to captive bred populations that would make smuggling not profitable. Just look at how many thousands of blue jeans pumilio have been legally imported into North America and we still don't have a sustainable captive population. So whenever we have a rare and desirable population of animals in the hobby, there is an incentive for unscrupulous people to smuggle in frogs that then get blended in as "legal" frogs since there is no way to tell the legit ones from the illegal ones.

I mentioned earlier that I thought carefully managed importations and releases to the hobby might be able to introduce frogs to the hobby while still protecting them in the wild. I think the Atelopus zeteki project provides a possible model. These animals were brought into captivity for a legitimate professional conservation breeding program and they turned out to be very prolific. The result was hundreds of cb zeteki that could probably fulfill the majority of market demand for this species. If you can satisfy market demand with cb animals, then you take away the incentive to smuggle. Of course in the beginning of the zeteki project, nobody dreamed they would be so prolific and releasing the animals to the hobby would violate the agreement with Panama. But the main point is that to take away the market for smuggled animals, you need to be able to produce cb animals in sufficient numbers to satisfy the market demand. If you don't do that and instead just have a few legal animals in the hobby, you actually make it more difficult to identify the illegal animals since it is easy to claim they came from a legitimate source. The bottom line is that I think that every species needs to be treated on a case by case basis.


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

I don't think that saying 'look how many of (a frog that was imported in bulk back in the early 90s) there are now' is a good comparison. The hobby was much less advanced back in those days. There was less knowledge about the frogs. Many of them died simply because people didn't know how to care for them, and most of those people that did know weren't focused on breeding them because how can you compete with a flood of imports for $15 - $20 each? 

Many of the rare or unobtainable frogs are closely related to ones that are already in captivity, or are simply different morphs of the same animal. Close enough so that at least some of their needs could be inferred from working with other frogs.

Importing frogs may not necessarily lead to a legal captive bred population, but no importation definitely won't lead to a legal captive bred population.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Everyone knows that the majority of smuggled animals die because of the horrendous conditions" 

This is not restricted to the smuggled animals. Large numbers of legally shipped amphibians land in terrible condition and suffer high mortality. 

snip "and most of those people that did know weren't focused on breeding them because how can you compete with a flood of imports for $15 - $20 each? "

Kind of like the current imports of pumilio (or what about auratus as low as $12 each)? It will be interesting to see how many people still have animals (or their offspring) from these imports in 20 or even 10 years. 
If the frogs are retailing from the importers as low as $60 each, then the importers are paying significantly less per frog. 

snip "Importing frogs may not necessarily lead to a legal captive bred population, but no importation definitely won't lead to a legal captive bred population"

To be a little nit picking this should say "..... but no legal importation definetly...."

I am not against legal imports but legal imports need to be supported by in situe conservation and education programs otherwise there will never be any incentive to support the habitat for the frogs. 

Ed


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

I'm fully aware that not all legal imports get the treatment that they should, but not all captive bred frogs get the treatment that they should either. The important thing is to buy from reputable people who treat their animals well.

With people posting that their recently imported pumilio are already breeding, I don't think that there will be an issue in the future with lack of captive bred supply.

I'm not disagreeing that there needs to be more than just importation, but you can't change human nature. If people want things, then they'll try to get them. Drugs are illegal also, yet there's no shortage of them around. If someone posted here that they had mysteriosus, histronicus, or vanzoliini, they'd be lambasted for selling smuggled frogs, but how much do you want to bet they'd be getting buying offers quietly through email or PM?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "h people posting that their recently imported pumilio are already breeding, I don't think that there will be an issue in the future with lack of captive bred supply."

How about the rise and decline of E. tricolor? This was a species that was common through the trade and now is relatively uncommon. This is a species that produces large clutches yet its numbers were not managed or sustained with the resulting potential loss of genetic diversity. 

Maybe I am being more than a little pessamistic about this but if this can occur in ten years period with a easily bred frog that has a high reproductive potential what does this bode for a frog that is not easily bred with a much lower reproductive potential? 
Given that there have been historical up and down cycles with different species and morphs in the last 10, 15 and 20 years resulting in losses of numbers, and genetics, I fail to see how this species will avoid the same fate without a concerted effort. To simply assume that because people are breeding them now, there will be plenty in the future is not a responsible out look (sort of the attitude that was part of the decline and extinction of the Carolina parakeet, and passanger pigeon (even though they weren't being cb but there are a lot of rare breeds of domestic animals that are going extinct due to lack of interest) as there is no management to assure that they will be present (this has also happened with locality color morphs of some annual killifish that are now extinct in the wild). 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Arklier said:


> I don't think that saying 'look how many of (a frog that was imported in bulk back in the early 90s) there are now' is a good comparison. The hobby was much less advanced back in those days. There was less knowledge about the frogs. Many of them died simply because people didn't know how to care for them, and most of those people that did know weren't focused on breeding them because how can you compete with a flood of imports for $15 - $20 each?


Sorry, but this is not accurate. The hobby has not advanced that much since those last blue jeans were coming in and people who have been very successful breeding other morphs of pumilio still have trouble breeding the blue jeans. The point is that there is no guarantee that importing rare frogs will lead to a robust captive population - especially with the current state of the hobby where rare animals go to whoever has a wad of cash burning a hole in their pocket. I think we agree about that. I also know from my profession that having just a few legal specimens of a species floating around creates a lot of problems with controlling illegal trade. If none of a given species are legal, it is much easier to enforce conservation law.

I do not disagree that legal importation of animals is not important for establishing legal populations but for the umteenth time, the captive populations that we currently have in the hobby have NO connection with conserving the species. We need to get over this assumption that creating populations of captive bred animals in captivity is good for conservation of the animals in the wild. Instead, we need to be discussing how best to create captive populations of these species WITHOUT INTERFERING with their conservation in the wild. In my mind, anything that helps to hide smuggled animals interferes and anything that helps shut down smuggling helps. Legal importations and captive breeding can either help or interfere depending on how it is done and how well the captive bred population can meet the market demand.

And I'll make just a quick general comment about the advancement of this hobby since the 90's. In many ways I think we are less advanced now than we were then. We have improved in our ability to use technology but I have seen very few advances in breeding techniques or successes. Almost everything we do now is based on methods developed in the 80's and 90's. The attitudes of the hobby are changing though.


----------

