# What can we practically do as hobbyists?



## Androgynoid (Sep 3, 2020)

So depending on how this thread goes it may be better placed in the thunderdome, but hopefully we dont get too far into the weeds..

Anyways, I wanted to start a dialogue around tangible conservation efforts that hobbyists have a) actually partook in in the past,b) ongoing efforts/organizations, and c) what we could try to do moving forward. 

I know that most of us have some ideals around sustainability and conservation, but I have to wonder just how much good is being done. For instance, it is pretty common to have the various odds and ends shipped to us and by the time something reaches the end user a lot of environmental harm is done in exhaust alone (especially when multiple orders start being placed, and I fully admit I'm guilty of this myself). 

Like the closest thing I've really seen as an ongoing conservation effort, is certain suppliers donating a small portion of proceeds or in a few cases using the money generated to fund their own conservation+breeding program. In the latter case, it sounds amazing on paper until you realize most frogs in circulation while _descended_ from those lines do not support conservation themselves. I have to wonder, 2 generations down the line with plenty shipped all over the country did the original.. donation seems the wrong word, conservational funding maybe? Does it _really_ balance out the ecological harm done from shipping offspring?

What are some practical hands on things we could actually do that helps not just our frogs native biomes, but offset the local damage as well?


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

#1: Refuse to by animals that come from dubious sources. Captive Bred always.


----------



## Androgynoid (Sep 3, 2020)

Chris S said:


> #1: Refuse to by animals that come from dubious sources. Captive Bred always.


Well, sure but that doesnt really address the carbon footprint of shipping the frogs themselves. At the end of the day, each separate shipment of frogs adds a secret carbon toll. It's like sometime in the past few years everyone collectively forgot just how bad shipping is for the environment for the sake of convenience.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

I don't have too much to add to this topic, though I do think it's a great one to talk about. I just wanted to suggest that perhaps a way to go about justifying the shipping thing is something along the line of a personal carbon credits/exchange system. Each of us is going to have some sort of carbon footprint no matter how much we try. Maybe in order to offset the environmental cost of shipping (and numerous other carbon-related expenses associated with our hobby), we constantly strive to lessen the carbon footprint of how we engage in the hobby. Maybe it's replacing old school fluorescent lighting with LED or repurposing more tanks instead of buying them new. That sort of thing. Just a thought.

Mark


----------



## SpaceMan (Aug 25, 2013)

One thing you can do that might often get overlooked is to just share your passion with others. Use your frogs as real-life examples of why these animals in the wild are worth saving. 

The majority of us do not live in the rainforests, and many of us do not get the opportunity to see these places first hand. The frogs you keep can be ambassadors to their species, whether it be through social media, or just your friends and family. 

I would say though that we should be careful about how we encourage people to enter the hobby, as not everyone will properly source their animals, and any increase in demand for something will drive illegal importation up as well.


----------



## riot (Dec 4, 2020)

Androgynoid said:


> Well, sure but that doesnt really address the carbon footprint of shipping the frogs themselves. At the end of the day, each separate shipment of frogs adds a secret carbon toll. It's like sometime in the past few years everyone collectively forgot just how bad shipping is for the environment for the sake of convenience.


I'd think the carbon footprint of shipping frogs is a drop in the bucket. All of the other items we buy likely accumulate a larger percentage, and all of that combined is still probably not even a fraction of the total. Even when you buy from a local store it is likely that equipment was shipped from somewhere and has already incurred it's own carbon footprint. I guess if you were really gung-ho on minimizing this you could insist on only locally produced goods - how feasible that is i'm a little dubious on. 

I would also wonder what the break even point on driving to pick something up versus having it shipped is? If I drive my car 5 miles to pick up a few things from the local pet store did I burn more or less carbon than I would have having it shipped to me on amazon? (keep in mind Amazon is delivering a large number of packages at a time) I don't know though I have my suspicions. What about driving an hour to a reptile show?



Encyclia said:


> Maybe it's replacing old school fluorescent lighting with LED or repurposing more tanks instead of buying them new. That sort of thing. Just a thought.


If the goal is minimizing our carbon footprint this approach is great!

I personally think when it comes to the impact we can have as Hobbyists the biggest impact is our wallets (collectively). Refusing to buy wild caught specimens, patronizing companies that dedicate a portion of sales towards causes we believe in, not patronizing companies who push agendas counter to these, and re-use/recycle.

While we're at it we could also all paint our roof's white. 😁


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

riot said:


> I'd think the carbon footprint of shipping frogs is a drop in the bucket. All of the other items we buy likely accumulate a larger percentage, and all of that combined is still probably not even a fraction of the total. Even when you buy from a local store it is likely that equipment was shipped from somewhere and has already incurred it's own carbon footprint. I guess if you were really gung-ho on minimizing this you could insist on only locally produced goods - how feasible that is i'm a little dubious on.


There are US produced vivs and lighting. Made with some imported parts, sure, but a step in the right direction even if it only sends a message that importing things unnecessarily is something to resist.

Washing and reusing FF cx cups should be considered obligatory, IMO.

Taking a hard stance against any further purchasing of any more smuggled animal lines should also be right at the top of the list. Going one step further to refuse to get involved with even those smuggled species/locales already in captivity sends an even stronger message.

*Check my math here, and forgive some of the rounding:*

Shipping v driving:

Burning gasoline creates 20 lbs CO2 per gallon.

Air freight: 0.82kg per MT/Km = 820g per 1000kg/Km* = a little under one gram per kg per Km = one pound per 2.2 lb (pretty standard box of frogs) per 272 miles.

So, you could ship a box of frogs 1,000 miles for 4 pounds of CO2 (one fifth of a gallon of gas, or about 8 miles in my car).

*Carbon dioxide emissions from international air freight

I couldn't easily find good data on ground freight, but it might be about 1/5 the CO2 per unit/distance of air freight. This is likely for long-haul trucking, and I have no idea how that might translate to local delivery.

Source of this wild guess (Warning! this does not look like a credible source in the very least):





__





CO2 emissions for shipping of goods - Time for Change


Globalization makes it easy to send goods around the world. The cost for shipping goods has never been as low as now. However, the choice of the means of transportation does severely influence the amount of CO2 emitted for the transportation of goods. The following table shows the amount of CO2...




timeforchange.org


----------



## Androgynoid (Sep 3, 2020)

riot said:


> If the goal is minimizing our carbon footprint this approach is great!
> 
> I personally think when it comes to the impact we can have as Hobbyists the biggest impact is our wallets (collectively). Refusing to buy wild caught specimens, patronizing companies that dedicate a portion of sales towards causes we believe in, not patronizing companies who push agendas counter to these, and re-use/recycle.
> 
> While we're at it we could also all paint our roof's white. 😁


Theres a saying that has been gaining some traction, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" that I find myself wanting to reflexively respond with but that feels too dismissive of the underlying issues. Amazon is notoriously anti-worker and harsh on the environment, which makes it easier to hand wave away say 3 packages a month because they're a small drop in the bucket so what difference would it ultimately make? We tell ourselves that our purchases, or lack thereof, dont make a difference so it becomes an easy excuse to continue supporting whichever businesses as they continue to grow their carbon footprint. Kind of a sidebar here, but what effect would white roofs have?

That being said, the site @Socratic Monologue linked does lead me to the conclusion that as things stand today shipping is likely easier on the environment than say local pickups contrary to my earlier assumption. This just seems so counterintuitive to me. Then again at the end of the day, most ecological damage is done by _corporate_ personages as opposed to.. well people. It is refreshing to hear so many people pitch in with reduction/reusing the lesser focused upon of the 3 R's of sustainability.


----------



## Androgynoid (Sep 3, 2020)

SpaceMan said:


> One thing you can do that might often get overlooked is to just share your passion with others. Use your frogs as real-life examples of why these animals in the wild are worth saving.
> 
> The majority of us do not live in the rainforests, and many of us do not get the opportunity to see these places first hand. The frogs you keep can be ambassadors to their species, whether it be through social media, or just your friends and family.
> 
> I would say though that we should be careful about how we encourage people to enter the hobby, as not everyone will properly source their animals, and any increase in demand for something will drive illegal importation up as well.


I do agree that with this approach we would need to be careful, since it could so easily be a double-edged sword.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Androgynoid said:


> Theres a saying that has been gaining some traction, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" that I find myself wanting to reflexively respond with but that feels too dismissive of the underlying issues


Sounds like a slogan with more than a grain of truth in it.

It also reminds that environmental damage is rooted in things that are larger than waste and habitat destruction and smuggling. One of those things is capitalism; another is population growth. Without getting overtly political (I think this thread is better here in the open than sequestered in the TD), putting thought/money/education/help into encouraging and allowing people to make good (i.e. rational, informed, fact based) choices about how many people we each cause to come into existence -- and making sure that those who do are very well cared for and thoughtfully educated and kept safe and cared for -- is the only long-term solution. When it comes to donations, that's where most of my money goes (but I really should start giving also to the Nature Conservancy and similar groups).


----------



## riot (Dec 4, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Burning gasoline creates 20 lbs CO2 per gallon.
> 
> Air freight: 0.82kg per MT/Km = 820g per 1000kg/Km* = a little under one gram per kg per Km = one pound per 2.2 lb (pretty standard box of frogs) per 272 miles.
> 
> ...


I had a sneaking suspicion the distance driven would likely be surprising vs freight, but no evidence so I didn't want to make any assumptions. Thanks for putting that together!

And spot on with the other points!



Androgynoid said:


> Kind of a sidebar here, but what effect would white roofs have?


There still seems to be some debate on this one way or the other, but it's speculated that painting roofs white would reflect more light, and with it thermal energy, than a black roof that would absorb the heat and get warmer. 

In essence it may help reduce the warming aspect of global climate change - I'm hoping that is a subject I can address without pitchforks coming out! 

Counter arguments are that some of the heat energy would just end up absorbed by particles in the air - I find that reasoning a little weak though as I imagine some - most of it would still escape the atmosphere resulting in at worst no net change and at best a net reduction in thermal energy heating the earth. 

On a small scale what would painting your roof white do? Probably nothing. But on a larger scale gotta wonder...


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

I don't follow these discussions much, but I recall reading that those sorts of thermal reflectance issues were thought to be quite useful in urban areas -- the 'heat islands' -- where reducing local temps would have a large impact on AC energy usage.

There exist readily available "solar reflective" shingles that are typically colored but reflect radiation in the IR spectrum for the same sort of effect.


----------



## Kmc (Jul 26, 2019)

Im not very good at math and try to make good choices as a consumer but know i fall short.

The thing that comes to mind is to, at every opportunity, express works and thoughts to others that reflect empathy and courtesy towards the living.

In everything we do in our involvement with those in our care.


----------



## jgragg (Nov 23, 2009)

I think this discussion might be missing the forest for the trees. Most of this discussion has focused narrowly on transportation emissions. Transport is rapidly being electrified, or at least is on a clear path to decarbonized (via e.g., renewables-fueled hydrogen production). But in 20-30 years when transportation decarbonization is completed, will there still be any primary neotropical rainforests? Or will they have all been tattered & replaced by (e.g.) bean and cane fields, processing plants & road networks, for faux meat and ethanol production - two other things being done ostensibly in service of climate concerns?

*The most important thing is to ensure these creatures persist in nature.* For my response, I'm going with something like "ensuring REDD+ efforts 1) are protected from carbon-offsets corruption, and 2) are deployed at scale".


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

One of the more tangible and direct things we can do is to buy frogs from sources that support conservation. I think the 3 main conservation efforts that the hobby supports are Wikiri (Ecuador), Mitsinjo (Madagascar), and Tesoros (Colombia).
Similarly, we need to have a strong stance against those who welcome smuggled frogs into the hobby, and do our best to ensure that this practice is unacceptable.


----------



## Bunsincunsin (Feb 11, 2008)

SpaceMan said:


> One thing you can do that might often get overlooked is to just share your passion with others. Use your frogs as real-life examples of why these animals in the wild are worth saving.
> 
> The majority of us do not live in the rainforests, and many of us do not get the opportunity to see these places first hand. The frogs you keep can be ambassadors to their species, whether it be through social media, or just your friends and family.
> 
> I would say though that we should be careful about how we encourage people to enter the hobby, as not everyone will properly source their animals, and any increase in demand for something will drive illegal importation up as well.


I think this approach is one of the most important efforts any one individual can make, next to supporting conservation organizations who have a direct impact on areas that need the most help, as well as being aware of your own impacts you have, both directly and indirectly, with regards to everyday life choices. However, it's one thing to appreciate these animals, yet a completely different matter to genuinely care about them. It's not enough to simply share a passion with others. A lot of people appreciate nature, but how many actually care about its integrity? The more impactful approach is to make your issue relevant to them, as individuals - to show how these organisms or the places they inhabit can have a profound change on the lives of others in their absence, both present and future, and how when they disappear, we haven't simply lost something that was pretty to look at, but something of ecological value.

I think there still remains a gross disconnect amongst the vast majority of individuals in the hobby between their approach to keeping vivaria and how they view the natural world, which is evident by the number and type of tanks they utilize, the total number of animals they keep, and the fashion in which those animals are kept. The most common reasoning that surfaces when individuals are setting up a tank, whether it be their first or tenth, is often of spacial concerns. However, many of these are also the same individuals who choose to set up ‘frog racks, ‘frog walls’, or ‘frog rooms’, and proceed to keep a plethora of species in undersized enclosures. In my opinion, this mindset shows little appreciation for the species being kept, let alone the natural habitat where they originate.

I view the more responsible and sustainable approach to keeping vivaria is quality over quantity (over convenience). If an individual is faced with the dilemma of keeping any number of small to medium-sized enclosures, each containing its own separate species, or one, moderate to large-sized enclosure, containing one species represented by a (as much as possible) biotopically accurate setup, I think the latter option should always prevail. In creating such an enclosure, individuals will gain a better understanding of not only the inhabitants they choose to keep, but also how that organism fits in with its place of origin - the emphasis here should be on understanding context. Taking the time to research the natural history of an animal can only serve to further cultivate the appreciation one needs to _want_ to care about those places as a whole, and the multitudes of biodiversity they support, while simultaneously creating an environment that is better suited to that animal, no matter how far detached they physically are from their native range. In the end, I think this type of approach results in not only healthier inhabitants who are perhaps able to more effectively utilize the space they inhabit, and in return free to exhibit more natural behaviors overall, but also in keepers who are more aware of the intrinsic value of the natural world.

Keeping and maintaining vivaria should be viewed as a privilege, and not merely as commodities to be had (contents or otherwise).

It should also be noted, no matter where you live, there are surely local forests, grasslands, wetlands, and other wild spaces that would equally benefit from your attention.




hypostatic said:


> One of the more tangible and direct things we can do is to buy frogs from sources that support conservation. I think the 3 main conservation efforts that the hobby supports are Wikiri (Ecuador), Mitsinjo (Madagascar), and Tesoros (Colombia).


You can add Costa Rican Amphibian Research Center to that list, as well.


----------

