# Hobby/trade reform?



## skylsdale

A link to a recently posted opinion piece regarding issues involved in the marine aquarium trade, but some parallels may be drawn to the amphibian/dendrobatid hobby.

Can unusual suspects reform the aquarium livestock trade?



> Before criticizing those who are criticizing the trade, aquarists would be wise to do some introspection and decide on which side of history they want the trade to fall. Will the aquarium trade and hobby be viewed as a force for good? Will aquarists be seen as standing in the trenches on the front line of ocean conservation? Or will the aquarium trade be seen as little more than wildlife trafficking with a “get it while you can” mentality?


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

I think the overall general attitude concerning conservation is much different in the frog hobby vs the aquarium hobby. 
The aqaurium hobby knowingly keep fish they can't reproduce in captivity. I wonder if they would be shocked knowing the numbers of wild caught fish that die during transport, in wholesalers tanks, and in aquarium stores tanks?


----------



## Sherman

Ron,

Thanks for sharing.

This type of shift requires high profile figures to push the issue into the public eye and steer trade in a particular direction. Who could act like the public aquariums in this niche hobby? Who could exhibit that level of public visibility and influence?

Chris Sherman


----------



## Roadrunner

Petco? The same Petco that won't buy cb animals from local hobbyists? They are the ones that are gonna be a player in this change?


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Actually, they are all possible to reproduce and they are making good strides breeding and raising up (the difficult part), some difficult species.

That being said, the hobby is moving towards sustainable harvest with collection areas being regularly surveyed and collection quotas based on those surveys.
As for deaths, they are decreasing rapidly, as dead fish are expensive and unacceptable to all parties. It's a lot less thwn you would assume. One point that MANY people fail to see if that marine fish are a resource that local people (often ENTIRE) villages use and depend on. I think it's only right that they have this opportunity, as long as it's not negatively impacting wild stock. I've been to a few operations where it's taught the locals the value of conservation, so they can enjoy the benefits for quite some time.



Rusty_Shackleford said:


> I think the overall general attitude concerning conservation is much different in the frog hobby vs the aquarium hobby.
> The aqaurium hobby knowingly keep fish they can't reproduce in captivity. I wonder if they would be shocked knowing the numbers of wild caught fish that die during transport, in wholesalers tanks, and in aquarium stores tanks?


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

The marine hobby trade does have it's issues (addressed in the article), but I believe it is constantly growing and positively changing.

I do find it funny that they mentioned the Smuggling of the Clipperton Angelfish, as that was a grey area, done by a friend of mine who made an obvious mistake. He also happens to be one of the trades most vocal and active people that are changing the hobby towards the better. He is responsible for training people to net catch fish worldwide, and has been the leader in that area.


----------



## Sherman

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Snip...One point that MANY people fail to see if that marine fish are a resource that local people (often ENTIRE) villages use and depend on. I think it's only right that they have this opportunity, as long as it's not negatively impacting wild stock. I've been to a few operations where it's taught the locals the value of conservation, so they can enjoy the benefits for quite some time.


I agree with this model. Conservation is accomplished when locals directly benefit from thier wildlife. This helps to combat the number one issue facing these animals, habitat destruction. If the untouched habitat is the most profitable use of the land, there will be no incentive to destroy it. The trick is to change the way that the general buying public, importer/exporter buisinesses and local land owners operate. 

The use of large scale entities to begin the change in the marine fish world is great. The buying power and consumer contact that Petco has makes them an ideal place to start reform. I think that thier influence has the potential to make a difference and help mold the mindset on these issues. Hopefully they can define their success in terms other than a quick profit, make this work and expand thier efforts.

Chris


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Actually, they are all possible to reproduce and they are making good strides breeding and raising up (the difficult part), some difficult species.
> 
> That being said, the hobby is moving towards sustainable harvest with collection areas being regularly surveyed and collection quotas based on those surveys.
> As for deaths, they are decreasing rapidly, as dead fish are expensive and unacceptable to all parties. It's a lot less thwn you would assume. One point that MANY people fail to see if that marine fish are a resource that local people (often ENTIRE) villages use and depend on. I think it's only right that they have this opportunity, as long as it's not negatively impacting wild stock. I've been to a few operations where it's taught the locals the value of conservation, so they can enjoy the benefits for quite some time.


While many species can be bred in captivity, up to this point very few can be raised sucsessfully in captivity. The aquarium hobby, and the saltwater hobby in particular has a lot of work to be done. To overcome the years of capturing fish with cyanide.


----------



## Ed

All references are relatively recent (last 5-10 years)..... 

Cyanide making a comeback 
Cyanide Fishing Makes a Comeback

ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/l.teh/destructive fishing/cyanide fishing in Ind.pdf (documentation on how it continues to spread)

James Morgan: Cyanide Fishing in the Coral Triangle (Photos)

Fishing Industry's Effects on Coral Reefs: Destructive Fishing Methods

Questioning the effectiveness of the "training" against cyanide fishing Interview with Dr. Peter Rubec discussing the non-lethal method for cyanide detection in marine fish — Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog 

http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/LRF/11/LRF11_05_Thorburn.pdf

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Sherman

I mean no disrespect to any participants in this conversation, but the point of this thread is not to debate marine fish collection methods, but to draw parallels between the current efforts for sustainability being put into action in the marine aquarium trade and the frog hobby.

In the article, the momentum of this change comes from large companies that are also highly visible to the public. They have the buying power and the public's attention and can therefore use these to leverage the animal suppliers to use more sustainable methods and edjucate the public as to the benefits of sustainability.

There seems to be no parallel to these large companies in the dart frog hobby. The "Big names" in the hobby are still small fish. (Pun intended.)

Chris


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

I think, at least in frogs, things are improving. Just looking at all the legit frog farming operations popping up in various countries, largely because of the efforts of a few. That's a good move forward and towards sustainable operations. Even wild collected frogs can be sustainable, but sadly, the science isn't being used yet, or really compiled. I think this will change, and luckily, CITES is the perfect "organization" to implement and enforce this. 



Sherman said:


> I mean no disrespect to any participants in this conversation, but the point of this thread is not to debate marine fish collection methods, but to draw parallels between the current efforts for sustainability being put into action in the marine aquarium trade and the frog hobby.
> 
> In the article, the momentum of this change comes from large companies that are also highly visible to the public. They have the buying power and the public's attention and can therefore use these to leverage the animal suppliers to use more sustainable methods and edjucate the public as to the benefits of sustainability.
> 
> There seems to be no parallel to these large companies in the dart frog hobby. The "Big names" in the hobby are still small fish. (Pun intended.)
> 
> Chris


----------



## Julio

Blue_Pumilio said:


> I think, at least in frogs, things are improving. Just looking at all the legit frog farming operations popping up in various countries, largely because of the efforts of a few. That's a good move forward and towards sustainable operations. Even wild collected frogs can be sustainable, but sadly, the science isn't being used yet, or really compiled. I think this will change, and luckily, CITES is the perfect "organization" to implement and enforce this.


so when do we get to see pics of your legitimate frog farm?


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

I don't owe you anything. Those who actually purchase frogs from me or have good intentions, I'm happy to show pics. As for "my" frog farm, it is not mine. I find it amazing that when someone does something the proper way, they get cut down for it. If you have questions, please feel free to contact the CR gov and ask them about operations there as they inspect the place. I have absolutely no interest in debating or proving anything I know to be true, and to those whose sole intention to tear someone's hard work down. I'll learn to ignore these statements in the future and happily share any info with those who actually have good intentions. Why feed the rabid?



Julio said:


> so when do we get to see pics of your legitimate frog farm?


----------



## Julio

huh, you talk about conservation, all the conservation organizations in this hobby are pretty open about their operations as you stated, so why are you so defensive when you are asked to show pics of your operation?


----------



## Sherman

I have to agree with Julio on this one. I read a lot about the change that is happening, and I would love to believe it is happening, I just don't see it. In regards to _O. pumilio_, I think we are slipping backwards, and I see the "get it while you can" mentality running wild. There has been zero evidence to make me believe in "all the legit frog farms".

Why keep so hush hush? I would figure that you would trumpet your evidence at top volume. It is marketing gold. I would throw you my full support if your operation was more transparent. I'm not asking for GPS data or business secrets, just some reasonable proof of existence beyond a single person's word.


----------



## Ed

Sherman said:


> I mean no disrespect to any participants in this conversation, but the point of this thread is not to debate marine fish collection methods, but to draw parallels between the current efforts for sustainability being put into action in the marine aquarium trade and the frog hobby.
> 
> In the article, the momentum of this change comes from large companies that are also highly visible to the public. They have the buying power and the public's attention and can therefore use these to leverage the animal suppliers to use more sustainable methods and edjucate the public as to the benefits of sustainability.
> 
> There seems to be no parallel to these large companies in the dart frog hobby. The "Big names" in the hobby are still small fish. (Pun intended.)
> 
> Chris


Actually Chris, the analogy of the issues regarding the persistence (and reasons for the resurgence) of cyanide fishing is apt... For example, once the big commercial groups go through and remove the majority of the easily accessiable animals (destroying the reef), we see the locals who are generally poverty stricken continuing the damage and destruction to the ecosystem for short term gain (as do the larger companies who initially harvested the region..). For example, massive clear cutting for soybean fields, cattle ranching, sugar cane reduce habitat and the animals are then also more easily accessed for removal... For example while bushmeat has traditionally been considered primarily an issue in Africa, we are seeing increased harvests in central and south America as well as Asia which is facilitated by the establishment of roads by loggers, farmers and miners.. 

We see a lack of enforcement of the regulations (which those articles demonstrate) including export of animals in violation of CITES (unsustainable harvests...).. This is very analogous to what is occurring in Panama where farm reared as a very nebulous definition is being used to allow massive exports of dendrobatids...... 

As I have noted in the past that sustainable harvest starts on the ground (see my posts here for a better breakdown http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...t-vs-captive-bred-conservation-efforts-4.html), with the locals but as long as the hobby is going to go for the hot new frog regardless of the origins, we are no better than those who continue the cycle of cyanide fishing or illegal export of other reef fish for the various trades..... Claims of how it is decreasing or getting better are unsupported at this time... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

When you have people on this board openingly accusing you of smuggling animals that you acquired through legal and ethical means, why would I not be defensive? Is your purpose to purchase these animals and make sure you are obtaining legit stock? I doubt that, as you haven't contacted me and asked me in a private conversation about these things, like others have. Anyone who actually was curious minded, would have politely contacted me asking for more information. Instead, I see people demanding photos, documents, everything...when their only purpose is an attempt to prove their theory that it's not legit. Why should I waste my time, let alone give into the demands of those people? Do you not see the frustration? Someone who spits on you one moment and the next asks you to waste your time on someone you'll never convince. They would argue the sky isn't blue...even if I could prove it was. 

I mean, I never mentioned the CR operation, and personally, when I wrote that I was thinking of Mark Peppers operations...someone I look up too. Yet, you brought it up.....no thanks.



Julio said:


> huh, you talk about conservation, all the conservation organizations in this hobby are pretty open about their operations as you stated, so why are you so defensive when you are asked to show pics of your operation?


----------



## Julio

you are posting on a public forum. why does everything need to be done privately? i never at any point said your animals are smuggled, but you did state that they are legitimately farmed and obtained through legal means, if you have nothing to hide, then just come out and show it.



Blue_Pumilio said:


> When you have people on this board openingly accusing you of smuggling animals that you acquired through legal and ethical means, why would I not be defensive? Is your purpose to purchase these animals and make sure you are obtaining legit stock? I doubt that, as you haven't contacted me and asked me in a private conversation about these things, like others have. Anyone who actually was curious minded, would have politely contacted me asking for more information. Instead, I see people demanding photos, documents, everything...when their only purpose is an attempt to prove their theory that it's not legit. Why should I waste my time, let alone give into the demands of those people? Do you not see the frustration? Someone who spits on you one moment and the next asks you to waste your time on someone you'll never convince. They would argue the sky isn't blue...even if I could prove it was.
> 
> I mean, I never mentioned the CR operation, and personally, when I wrote that I was thinking of Mark Peppers operations...someone I look up too. Yet, you brought it up.....no thanks.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Did you ever think I'm trying to protect my source and don't want that stuff on a PUBLIC forum for everyone to read and see? 



Julio said:


> you are posting on a public forum. why does everything need to be done privately? i never at any point said your animals are smuggled, but you did state that they are legitimately farmed and obtained through legal means, if you have nothing to hide, then just come out and show it.


----------



## Julio

mmmm, i am not asking you to show pics of your paperwork, or who you obtain the frogs from, but if that was the case then maybe don't you think that is something you should have stated from the very first statement?


----------



## Ed

Julio said:


> you are posting on a public forum. why does everything need to be done privately? i never at any point said your animals are smuggled, but you did state that they are legitimately farmed and obtained through legal means, if you have nothing to hide, then just come out and show it.


I filed a FOIA request with USF&W on imports and exports of O. pumilio from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the USA... It's been accepted so I'm waiting to see what turns up. If anyone else wants to file one.. shoot me a e-mail via my name and I'll explain the very simple process. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Big business, ie Petco etc., will fall on the side of profits, no matter what side is right. If they can make more money from cyanide collected fish they will do that, if they can make more money from sustainably collected fish, they will do that, if they can make more money selling captive raised fish, they will do that. The only responsibility they think about is to their shareholders.


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> I think, at least in frogs, things are improving. Just looking at all the legit frog farming operations popping up in various countries, largely because of the efforts of a few. That's a good move forward and towards sustainable operations. Even wild collected frogs can be sustainable, but sadly, the science isn't being used yet, or really compiled. I think this will change, and luckily, CITES is the perfect "organization" to implement and enforce this.


 
As for CITES being the perfect "organization" we can see the holes in this by simply looking at the data... for example if Panama exports to a non-signatory country... then there is no CITES paperwork on the export or the import for that shipment.. In addition, if the non-CITES signatory then exports to another country (CITES member or not), there isn't any required paperwork there either... this is clearly outlined in the literature... see for example 

http://www.vincentnijman.org/files/a88_nijmanshepherd_poisonarrowfrog_biodivconserv_2.pdf ).... 
So to make that claim is problematic at best... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

I am actually friends with several suppliers of Petco, and they have some fairly rigorous rules regarding where animals come from. It's bad PR....they even require people to run over to the exporters facilities to check out things....sure some things get through the loop, but again, change is happening. 



Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Big business, ie Petco etc., will fall on the side of profits, no matter what side is right. If they can make more money from cyanide collected fish they will do that, if they can make more money from sustainably collected fish, they will do that, if they can make more money selling captive raised fish, they will do that. The only responsibility they think about is to their shareholders.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

I see no harm in posting the CITES docs for the two shipments that have arrived, certain details blacked out, of course. 

Anyone is welcome to verify them with the CR ministry or USFWS. 

I'm guessing this is still not enough, you'll DEMAND more, and it'll never stop, as there are some people you can never convince.


----------



## punctata

Thank you for showing this. Hopefully when someone is proven wrong they can at least say sorry


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Ed, for a non-CITES country export to a CITES country, PAPERWORK is still needed, basically "CITES like" papers from an competent management authority that would have likely governed the CITES papers if it was a member. How do I know this? Because I've imported CITES species from a country that, at the time, was not a CITES member. I'm pretty sure this is spelled out in the regulations, as I remember it being a headache for me. I'm always up for a challenge, though. 

Also, you require CITES paperwork to legally export a CITES species from any CITES member....even if it is going to a non-member.

See the following:

"CITES document or CITES exemption document means any certificate, permit, or other document issued by a Management Authority of a Party or a competent authority of a non-Party whose name and address is on file with the Secretariat to authorize the international movement of CITES specimens."

"A CITES document from a non-Party may be in the form of a permit or certificate, letter, or any other form that clearly indicates the nature of the document and includes the information in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section and the additional information in § 23.25."

"§ 23.25 What additional information is required on a non-Party CITES document?
(a) Purpose. Under Article X of the Treaty, a Party may accept a CITES document issued by a competent authority of a non-Party only if the document substantially conforms to the requirements of the Treaty.
(b) Additional certifications. In addition to the information in § 23.23(c) through (e), a CITES document issued by a non-Party must contain the following certifications on the face of the document:"

http://www.fws.gov/le/pdf/CITESDocumentRequirements11142007.pdf





Ed said:


> As for CITES being the perfect "organization" we can see the holes in this by simply looking at the data... for example if Panama exports to a non-signatory country... then there is no CITES paperwork on the export or the import for that shipment.. In addition, if the non-CITES signatory then exports to another country (CITES member or not), there isn't any required paperwork there either... this is clearly outlined in the literature... see for example
> 
> http://www.vincentnijman.org/files/a88_nijmanshepherd_poisonarrowfrog_biodivconserv_2.pdf )....
> So to make that claim is problematic at best...
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


----------



## Sherman

punctata said:


> Thank you for showing this. Hopefully when someone is proven wrong they can at least say sorry


Punctata,
Who do you believe was "proven wrong" by these documents?

Blue,
Thank you for posting your paperwork, hopefully this will work toward your validation. Couldn't resist that DEMAND comment though, that's too bad. Efforts like you are describing are what will create a responsible hobby. 

Chris Sherman


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

It might be referring to people suggesting (might have ben said) they were smuggled animals, which is why they requested paperwork from USFWS.



Sherman said:


> Punctata,
> Who do you believe was "proven wrong" by these documents?
> 
> Blue,
> Thank you for posting your paperwork, hopefully this will work toward your validation. Couldn't resist that DEMAND comment though, that's too bad. Efforts like you are describing are what will create a responsible hobby.
> 
> Chris Sherman


----------



## hypostatic

So first off I'd like o say that I am not pointing fingers at anyone.

But to me it seems like the general importing/exporting is flawed at several different levels, and wherever there is a loophole or a government that is concerned, someone will take advantage of the situation and manage to get around the bureaucracy. Even CITES paperwork can be falsified/tampered.

I'll leave this Nat Geo story on the subject here for anyone who's interested:
National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

It can be falsified/tampered, which is why those special little numbers on top make it easy to trace and confirm with the exporting & importing country. Which is also why each country has a management authority that issues it, and any questions are asked to this authority when the specimens are imported and physically inspected by USFWS. 

As for the Asian wildlife issues, Asia is having some major issues right now with non-existent documents, mainly because of lax enforcement and they don't have something called the Lacey Act. If they don't get caught at the airport, it's usually considered legit...




hypostatic said:


> So first off I'd like o say that I am not pointing fingers at anyone.
> 
> But to me it seems like the general importing/exporting is flawed at several different levels, and wherever there is a loophole or a government that is concerned, someone will take advantage of the situation and manage to get around the bureaucracy. Even CITES paperwork can be falsified/tampered.
> 
> I'll leave this Nat Geo story on the subject here for anyone who's interested:
> National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

This whole thread has gone terribly off topic. 
Can we please stop the squabbaling and get back to the topic of conservation and how what the aquarium hobby is doing (or isn't doing) can apply to dart frogs?


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Ed, for a non-CITES country export to a CITES country, PAPERWORK is still needed, basically "CITES like" papers from an competent management authority that would have likely governed the CITES papers if it was a member.


How it is done in the US (as demonstrated by the USF&W link skips over parties other than the US.... For example in the reference I cited above.. more than 63,000 dendrobatids were trafficked around the word in the period between 2004-2008... 



> *Appendix-II specimens*
> 
> An export permit or re-export certificate issued by the Management Authority of the State of export or re-export is required.
> 
> *An export permit may be issued only if the specimen was legally obtained and if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.
> *
> A re-export certificate may be issued only if the specimen was imported in accordance with the Convention.
> In the case of a live animal or plant, it must be prepared and shipped to minimize any risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.
> *No import permit is needed unless required by national law*







> *In its **Article VII**, the Convention allows or requires Parties to make certain exceptions to the general principles described above, notably in the following cases: *
> 
> for specimens in transit or being transhipped [see Resolution Conf. 9.7 (Rev. CoP15)];
> for specimens that were acquired before CITES provisions applied to them (known as pre-Convention specimens, see Resolution Conf. 13.6);
> for specimens that are personal or household effects [see Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14)];
> *for animals that were ‘bred in captivity’ [see also Resolution **Conf. 10.16 (Rev.)**];*
> for plants that were ‘artificially propagated’ [see also Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15)];
> for specimens that are destined for scientific research;
> for animals or plants forming part of a travelling collection or exhibition, such as a circus [see also Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP15)].
> There are special rules in these cases and a permit or certificate will generally still be required. Anyone planning to import or export/re-export specimens of a CITES species should contact the national CITES Management Authorities of the countries of import and export/re-export for information on the rules that apply.
> *When a specimen of a CITES-listed species is transferred between a country that is a Party to CITES and a country that is not, the country that is a Party may accept documentation equivalent to the permits and certificates described above*


As is clearly laid out in the reference I cited above on dart frogs... the exports from Panama that eventually ended up in Thailand.. were clearly relabled during transit by running them through a non-signatory country and oddly enough... even though Kazakhstan is a signatory...they reported that they didn't export any dart frogs even though they clearly had done so...so to claim that papers must be filed by signatories when shipping to non-signatories seems to have fallen by the wayside on a large scale... and this is even before we consider the above loopholes...for example Panama has not produced any hard evidience that the trade is not detrimental to the wild populations... and that is before we get to the fact that a permit isn't always needed for "captive bred" animals.... 

Some comments 

Ed 

PS: sorry Jon for what you may still consider off topic...but since it involved smuggling I thought it was still pretty much on point....


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Ed, those animals described in those countries were NEVER exported from the original countries with any paperwork or acknowledgement that they were exported. They were smuggled into those countries and then said to originate from the countries they were smuggled into. Sort of like many of the "captive bred" animals being sent out of the Ukraine lately that really originated from Madagascar. Are you trying to say something different had occurred.

What I stated still stands and I'm happy to find the original text in the COTES convention paperwork, if you'd like. It was cited in the post you responded too, though. I'm not sure if you are arguing against what I said or something completely different.



Ed said:


> How it is done in the US (as demonstrated by the USF&W link skips over parties other than the US.... For example in the reference I cited above.. more than 63,000 dendrobatids were trafficked around the word in the period between 2004-2008...
> 
> 
> [/LIST]
> 
> As is clearly laid out in the reference I cited above on dart frogs... the exports from Panama that eventually ended up in Thailand.. were clearly relabled during transit by running them through a non-signatory country and oddly enough... even though Kazakhstan is a signatory...they reported that they didn't export any dart frogs even though they clearly had done so...so to claim that papers must be filed by signatories when shipping to non-signatories seems to have fallen by the wayside on a large scale... and this is even before we consider the above loopholes...for example Panama has not produced any hard evidience that the trade is not detrimental to the wild populations... and that is before we get to the fact that a permit isn't always needed for "captive bred" animals....
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed
> 
> PS: sorry Jon for what you may still consider off topic...but since it involved smuggling I thought it was still pretty much on point....


----------



## Sitting bull frog

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Can we please stop the squabbaling and get back to the topic of conservation and how what the aquarium hobby is doing (or isn't doing) can apply to dart frogs?


It should be noted that Asia eats about 100000x the ornamental topical fish that the USA imports as pets. The more endangered, the more mystical powers they inherit by eating it. And it doesn't stop with fish...

I've been a saltwater hobbyist for about 10 years. Let me tell you how I got into it.

When I was in college I met a fellow engineering student who had a saltwater fish tank. I said to him "its too much maintenance for me; how do you deal with all the work that goes into saltwater?". He explained how over decades of research and refinement it isn't much work anymore; things just have to be done on a good schedule. He then began pointing out the species in his tank; "this is such and such.. and it's extinct in wild... and that's this... also extinct etc.". When he heard of things becoming rare he implemented the "get it while you can" mentality. This mentality of saltwater hobbyists is what saved so many species from extinction. Him and others would propagate their livestock and get it as established as possible in the hobby as well as donate stuff to reseed the wild (which isn't working so far due to the state of the oceans).

I think the rest of the conservation world should walk in the footsteps of the aquarium trade. Get people interested in keeping frogs as pets. Get them out of the wild as quick as possible. I know this is against the grain of typical conservation thought. It's a ' harness the power of greed and selfishness ' proposition. If people start keeping stuff as pets, they more likely to become conservationists and appreciate wildlife.

Unfortunately conservationists / scientists hate this thinking. They WUANT everybody to just realize how important conservation is and do 'something' about it... They think 'raise awareness' programs are productive, despite decades of failure. I find this highly unrealistic based on what we know about human nature. When I talk to people about the amphibian crisis, they say "who cares, what can the frogs do for me, does it help me get laid?". When I start to explain to them why it's important in more than a few tweets or facebook one liners, their eyes start to glaze over as their attention span drifts off to think about whos going to win Idol or the football game next weekend, or what they're going to drink tonight. In fact this post has probably passed the length where people stop reading. In third world countries the mentality is even worse. Hopelessly, Unfixably, worse. This is why the articles blurb on educating native peoples is futile.

There is so much rhetoric on documentaries and conservation articles brainwashing people into believing the pet trade is the number one thing decimating species. This couldn't be further from the truth. Habitat destruction is still the number one cause of all extinctions. Humans have destroyed the Central American habitat with world trade and Chytrid; but before that they bulldozed, burned and colonized more than half the land... There wasn't much land down there to begin with. Yet we've been blaming the pet trade; focusing our efforts on blocking that while ignoring the bigger pictures.

I think it's destructive for us to believe that by encouraging people NOT to collect frogs, we are saving species. We can't stop people from collecting. Impossible to enforce. It's the government and conservation societies that need to create a friendly environment for collectors so when they collect a threatened species they don't do it in SECRET, and hence allow a more regulated open environment that may encourage that pet owner to allow his species to become part of a breeding program.

We can't stop people from being bad pet owners. But should realize that even bad pet owners create a demand driving an industry that encourages larger scale profitable breeding programs that ultimately save species. Cites stands in the way of this.

CITES? When some old lady brings her endangered pet parrot from USA to overseas with her, than back home again, and she doesn't have all her CITES or CDC papers in line, Fish & Wildlife 9 times out of 10 kills the bird. CDC wont even test the bird for illness if papers aren't filed correctly; they just kill it. I once saw a lady bring a bird back with cites docs and proof of captive bred in the USA, but FWS killed it saying she needed Cites papers from country of origin, even though the bird wasn't native there. I bring this up because it happens all the time in the bird hobby. The paperwork is extremely complicated for the casual pet owner not familiar with government bureaucracy and lack of common sense; 1 uncrossed T and your bird is dead no matter how endangered; sounds unbelievable right? I mean how could a system designed to protect species exist in such a form? Cites doesn't stop or even slow down the smuggler; it tries to make criminals out of people naive to the rules. I could go to CR tomorrow and collect as many endangered frogs as I want and no-one's going to stop me; unless I'm honest with government officials in which case they'll kill the endangered species and give me a fine. Then they'll all pat themselves on the back for catching another bad guy.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

What livestock was bred and distributed? What institutions were involved in "reseeding" the seas?

Taking more frogs out of the wild will not solve or fix anything. Captive breeding projects such as Wikiri, and CRARC, do make a difference. You support the collecting of threatened species for the pet trade? Ludicrious. 
The only thing about your post I agree with is habitat destruction is the number one threat. 
Native peoples DO need to be educated. These people are trying to survive. They rely on sustenance farming and hunting and fishing to feed their families. Go to the amazon, observe the natives catching only as many fish as their family will eat, and they'll go back out tomorrow to feed their families. 
I respect your input and opinion, but I think you're waaaaaay off. 

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk


----------



## shrum

I think you are spot on with the statement about taking more frogs out of the wild. I myself have WC frogs from recent imports but I thought this was going to be a limited thing with hobbiests trying to breed the frogs making them stable in the hobby. I see these imports come in and see so many well established frogs being sold as WC and I really don't understand why. I understand people have business's they are trying to keep but do we really need more Cristo's in the hobby to keep bringing in WC. Not sure if this jumps off topic or not and sorry if it does. I personally would like to see imports slow down and allow people in the hobby stabilize what we already have.


----------



## Sitting bull frog

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> While many species can be bred in captivity, up to this point very few can be raised sucsessfully in captivity.


Im not sure what you mean here. In fact many species of fish, endangered clams, and cnidarians, are bred and raised through even the larval stage in the saltwater hobby. This is an extremely difficult operation compared to frog farming, and major testament to the how far the saltwater hobby has come over the decades. Raising larvae, many of which are specialists, means becoming an expert at raising its food, and making sure its food gets a perfect diet or the larvae wont develop correctly or at all. That endangered cardinal featured in the article is easily bred in captivity... for a saltwater fish that is... Im not even sure why people in the US would import / buy non captive raised ones at this point; but I wont deny that it happens.


> The aquarium hobby, and the saltwater hobby in particular has a lot of work to be done. To overcome the years of capturing fish with cyanide.


This is true. But this goes back to the magnitudes of added difficulty in raising ocean fauna compared to other species. We also need to remember there are so many more fish, cnidarians, arthropods, clams, starfish than there are frogs. We will never reach a point where we can breed the entire reef ecosystem in captivity simply because it's too big an undertaking. These differences are important; saving the world's ~2000 endangered frogs is a cakewalk compared to saving ocean fauna.

Pollution is the main culprit killing the reefs. Unfortunately I don't see any solution apart from blocking trade with countries that don't adhere to our environmental standards; which will never happen since money runs the world. I would encourage you to research a little about Cuba, It has one of the most preserved ocean ecosystems simply because it's cut off from so much world trade.



> Taking more frogs out of the wild will not solve or fix anything. Captive breeding projects such as Wikiri, and CRARC, do make a difference. You support the collecting of threatened species for the pet trade? Ludicrious.
> The only thing about your post I agree with is habitat destruction is the number one threat.


Have you never had frogs as pets? Is this not a forum started by a few who collected frogs; for people who collect frogs? Did the frogs not all come from the wild originally? And for the frogs that are now established in captivity do we need to worry as much about whether they will become extinct? Had the amount of effort been put into raising frogs as aquaria, before they became threatened, we would be laughing in the face of chytrid.

In any case it doesn't matter what I think, or what anyone thinks. Whether I agree with collecting from the wild or not... Im trying to be realistic. It is unenforceable, it is unstoppable. Im saying to try and adapt a solution that works, that doesn't require micromanagement, and is compatible with an unstoppable phenomena. A for profit solution is the best solution.


> Native peoples DO need to be educated. These people are trying to survive. They rely on sustenance farming and hunting and fishing to feed their families. Go to the amazon, observe the natives catching only as many fish as their family will eat, and they'll go back out tomorrow to feed their families.


The idea of tribals being conservation minded people who live in harmony with nature is is better described as romanticism rather than truth. But thats for another debate. I wasn't referring to tribals when I said "native" I was referring to national natives such as the Oceanian native using cyanide pictured and referenced in the original article. What I mean is you can spend as much money as you like trying to raise education/awareness in Guatemala about how burning the forest puts species to extinction; in the end the poor Guatemalan is going to say "does saving the frogs profit me more than turning this into cropland?". 

My whole point has been that creating a for profit motive that saves frogs as a side effect, is going to be more effective than conservationists fantasizing that one day people will wake up and say "Im Now Aware!" and 'appreciate' what we appreciate before it's too late. Right now I see the pet trade as the primary candidate succeeding somewhat in that direction. But Im open for any other profitable ideas. If little ol 300mil USA pulled out of the global pet trade tomorrow it wouldn't improve anything; fish would still be caught with cyanide and sent all over the world.


----------



## Sitting bull frog

shrum said:


> I think you are spot on with the statement about taking more frogs out of the wild. I myself have WC frogs from recent imports but I thought this was going to be a limited thing with hobbiests trying to breed the frogs making them stable in the hobby. I see these imports come in and see so many well established frogs being sold as WC and I really don't understand why. I understand people have business's they are trying to keep but do we really need more Cristo's in the hobby to keep bringing in WC. Not sure if this jumps off topic or not and sorry if it does. I personally would like to see imports slow down and allow people in the hobby stabilize what we already have.


I agree 100% with what youre saying. I would have no problem doing whatever it takes to stop people from importing things that are already established in the hobby.


----------



## Ed

I got my response from USF&W on the import of all Oophaga pumilio from Costa Rica and/or Nicaragua between December 1, 2012, and April 30, 2013.... There were 60 frogs imported from Costa Rica, none from Nicaragua, the date of importation was 3/08/13, and the importer's name is a (a name here, not Justin ... ).... not a certain J.M.... I also have the exporter's company in Costa Rica... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Ed, those animals described in those countries were NEVER exported from the original countries with any paperwork or acknowledgement that they were exported. They were smuggled into those countries and then said to originate from the countries they were smuggled into. Sort of like many of the "captive bred" animals being sent out of the Ukraine lately that really originated from Madagascar. Are you trying to say something different had occurred.
> 
> What I stated still stands and I'm happy to find the original text in the COTES convention paperwork, if you'd like. It was cited in the post you responded too, though. I'm not sure if you are arguing against what I said or something completely different.


Justin,

You are avoiding my points... I targeted your comments about how CITES was the "perfect" organization to manage these issues...and provided documentation that refuted your statement... In addition, you first claim that paperwork is required from a CITES to a non-CITES country and then when I point out the documented huge hole in that statement you then try to backtrack and claim that they were never legally exported... Which is it? Does Panama have to file paperwork registered with CITES or don't they? Or is this another claim like when you said Brazil exports captive bred boas? 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Sitting bull frog said:


> Him and others would propagate their livestock and get it as established as possible in the hobby as well as donate stuff to reseed the wild (which isn't working so far due to the state of the oceans).


The conservation through captive breeding fallacy... See http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511 
and http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-4.html#post586940



Sitting bull frog said:


> Unfortunately conservationists / scientists hate this thinking.


Actually, this isn't true...at least for scientists/conservationists that understand the issues.. See the above two links.... 





Sitting bull frog said:


> In third world countries the mentality is even worse. Hopelessly, Unfixably, worse. This is why the articles blurb on educating native peoples is futile.


Again, this is a bunch of crud.... there are abundant examples in the conservation literature (see the above two links for references you can dig up yourself).... If the locals are allowed to engage in sustainable harvests and exports, it works wonders... 



Sitting bull frog said:


> There is so much rhetoric on documentaries and conservation articles brainwashing people into believing the pet trade is the number one thing decimating species. This couldn't be further from the truth. Habitat destruction is still the number one cause of all extinctions. Humans have destroyed the Central American habitat with world trade and Chytrid; but before that they bulldozed, burned and colonized more than half the land... There wasn't much land down there to begin with. Yet we've been blaming the pet trade; focusing our efforts on blocking that while ignoring the bigger pictures.


This is shifting the blame... yes habitat destruction is the number one problem but the rarer a species gets the more desirable it is for someone to have it so you have an economic drive to collect them.... This is where the hobby puts the final nails in the coffins... It's been documented in a number of species... for example Chelodina mccordi has been decimated by collection for the pet trade... And Goniurosaurus luii was collected into extinction at the locality from where it was first described..... See the above references... What your argument essentially is, is it's okay because we're not hurting them as much as habitat destruction.... It's not an either or proposition but an additive one.. the cumulative effect is the issue.... 



Sitting bull frog said:


> CITES? When some old lady brings her endangered pet parrot from USA to overseas with her, than back home again, and she doesn't have all her CITES or CDC papers in line, Fish & Wildlife 9 times out of 10 kills the bird.


This is hogwash... They are typically confiscated and held at a quarantine facility.. If the paperwork isn't corrected it ends up at a zoo or other institution.. They haven't been doing this as regular part of confiscations since the late 1970s or early 1980s... 




Sitting bull frog said:


> CDC wont even test the bird for illness if papers aren't filed correctly; they just kill it.


Where did you get the idea that the CDC is responsible??? Wrong agency.... USDA (specifically APHIS) is the correct agency... 




Sitting bull frog said:


> sense; 1 uncrossed T and your bird is dead no matter how endangered; sounds unbelievable right? QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, extremely unbelievable.. particularly if you were expecting the CDC to test the bird....
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Ed,

Until you apologize for saying these frogs were illegally imported, I don't feel the need to respond to your questions. You got your proof they are legit. I feel you need to state that you were wrong and, according to all known information, the frogs were legally imported from Costa Rica (and not channeled through another country). What agreements I have with individuals/friends to handle importations are none of your concern. I never claimed to import those exact specimens under my personal USFWS permits and sometimes it better/easier for others to handle shipments for logistical reasons.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Ed,

You accused me of smuggling animals you now know are clearly legally imported through the proper channels with all documentation. I'd surprised you didn't take the chance to say that you were wrong, that these frogs are not illegal, and that I didn't smuggle them. I've actually seen several individuals end up in court, for libel, over similar statements. With that, I would think you'd do the right thing, retract your statements and apologize for any ill will you caused me with those statements. If someone said such troublesome things about you, and they were proved wrong, wouldn't you want them to at least do that? Especially when these false statements caused potential harm to the other individual and are still found on this very forum for anyone to see?


----------



## Ed

Justin,

I was wondering if you were going to try and take this route…. As for demanding an apology because they must be legal since USF&W passed them through I'm going to draw your attention to your own words on this topic... 
From... http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/84013-costa-rican-imports-when-did-cr-start-allowing-species-exported-11.html#post742185



Blue_Pumilio said:


> I find it funny people use USFWS inspections to show their animals are legal. This dealer selling these animals gave me that exact justification. Smuggled is smuggled regardless if USFWS was fooled. As a community, we know better and should always discourage the trade in smuggled frogs. Especially when people are working hard to do things the right way with breeding these species in the origin country. A carefully constructed legal breeding program benefits the country, the species, and the hobbyist. Don't think for a second that these classifieds and boards aren't being watched. Actions like importing HIGHLY suspicious frogs and selling them (there are MANY dealers doing this) will come back to haunt the dealer and the hobby.


and (from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/84013-costa-rican-imports-when-did-cr-start-allowing-species-exported-11.html#post742214 ) (spaces removed to save space)


Blue_Pumilio said:


> Personally, if I imported these frogs, I'd be the one contacting USFWS and asking them to look into everything further to clear my name and more importantly, to clear my frogs (truth be said, on questionable animals, I do this BEFORE I import them). Even then, it does not guarantee the frogs were not originally acquired through non-legitimate means, but it does add some credibility to that side of the debate.


Based on your own statements, simply because they cleared import, they may not be legal so I’m not sure why I would have to apologize…. As you clearly stated if USF&W investigates the shipment they could still be illegal….. For me to have commited libel I would have to knowingly made a false statement with the intent to harm your reputation…. I have not done so and this is clearly seen by the fact that prior to that point CR was tightly closed with respect to Dendrobatid exports and in addition, your agreement that passage through USF&W inspection does not mean they are legal… 

As for the whole, you never claimed to be bringing them in on your own permits, I’m going to point to an example by you where you directly imply that is what you were doing…. You never took the opportunity to correct the perception in any of the threads or posts that you weren’t bringing them in on your own permits…. As one example see….. 

From http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/fr...aga-pumilio-farmed-costa-rica.html#post827520




VenomR00 said:


> How often do you plan on bringing them in? I love Siquirres and wouldn't mind a new line and year to breed out and help establish but with very little room currently and a limited budget I am not currently able to.


 
and the immediate answer 



Blue_Pumilio said:


> I'm hoping to get some more in approx 4 weeks, then later this year. However, many of those may be exported overseas and only a few may be available in the USA.


As you can clearly see, it is implied that you are bringing those frogs in yourself and not through a second party…. It wouldn’t have been an issue if you had made it clear you were getting them from somewhere else… 

Due to length continued in next post....


----------



## Ed

As for why I’m questioning you on a number of things, it is because you make a lot of comments that are suspect, particularly coming from someone who has repeatedly made huge claims of experience in import/export..… for example (from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/oophaga/79458-esperanza-pumilio-14.html#post723471)




Blue_Pumilio said:


> D. galactonotus are regularly exported as CBB specimens from Brazil.


Which is flat out contradicted by CITES trade database and that is even before we get to your comments about cb boas coming out of Brazil…(at least you admitted to a mistake in this example as opposed to the cb boa from Brazil claim)…. 

Or when you advertised Bumble bee toads as no more to be imported (from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/frog-classifieds/92906-wc-dasha-tincs-atelopus-chilean-water-toad-melanophryniscus-suriname-leaf-toads.html#post819722) 




Blue_Pumilio said:


> *Klappenbach's Red-belly Toad (Melanophryniscus klappenbachi) WC Paraguay AD $80.00 Pair LAST IMPORT ON THIS SPECIES, PARAGUAY WILL ISSUE NO MORE QUOTA!!! *


Despite more being posted on kingsnake within a couple of days and the fact that since Melanophryniscus isn’t listed on CITES, Paraguay is under no obligation to set a quota see *http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/* 


> There is no specific requirement in the text of the Convention to establish quotas to limit the trade in CITES-listed species. But the use of export quotas has become such an effective tool for the regulation of international trade in wild fauna and flora that Parties to CITES adopted, at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (The Hague, 2007), Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15) on Management of nationally established export quotas.


*….. *

It was a increasing body of questionable statements that resulted in my decision to file the FOIA……. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Scott

... and I, and others, had wondered if you'd continue your witch hunt.

You're a good friend Ed - but you really need to back off a bit on this one. I know you pride yourself on the Gila Monster reputation (once you bite, you never let go), but it doesn't hurt to admit you're wrong (or at least, not totally right) once in awhile.

For the record - I've never bought anything from Justin, and likely never will.

I'm just watching the witch hunt wondering why you cannot back down a bit - or at least try to find better data.

[edit: And no - I'm not crazy about all of the choices I've seen Justin make. But I do believe he's trying to get legitimate information on his imports - to the best of his ability. If he is ever proven to have acted otherwise - then *I will be the one admitting I was wrong* ... ]

Sincerely.

s



Ed said:


> Justin,
> 
> I was wondering if you were going to try and take this route…. As for demanding an apology because they must be legal since USF&W passed them through I'm going to draw your attention to your own words on this topic...


----------



## Ed

Scott said:


> ... and I, and others, had wondered if you'd continue your witch hunt.


Ahh, yes it must be a witch hunt..... simply because a person makes a bunch of odd and/or suspicious statements/claims, can't defend them and gets caught out on it.

So let it be a witch hunt... I'm done here. If anyone wants to see the FOIA report shoot me a e-mail via my contact information.... 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Ed, people can be wrong on what they remembered correctly, as I was and later stated that. It's ok to be wrong, it doesn't make me less of a person. As for CB boas being sent out, they are, and you stated this yourself. Herps are currently being farmed and exported from there. I've never imported any herps from Brazil, just fish, so my knowledge has plenty of room to grow.

As for the bumblebee toads, do you see any WC being offered right now? I picked them up as they were being unpacked, so of course people will buy ones after me to resale from the same wholesaler. I didn't buy them all! Did you see that the last shipment from Paraguay was confiscated? Hmmm....things change, but so far, no more have come in. 





Ed said:


> As for why I’m questioning you on a number of things, it is because you make a lot of comments that are suspect, particularly coming from someone who has repeatedly made huge claims of experience in import/export..… for example (from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/oophaga/79458-esperanza-pumilio-14.html#post723471)
> 
> 
> 
> Which is flat out contradicted by CITES trade database and that is even before we get to your comments about cb boas coming out of Brazil…(at least you admitted to a mistake in this example as opposed to the cb boa from Brazil claim)….
> 
> Or when you advertised Bumble bee toads as no more to be imported (from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/frog-classifieds/92906-wc-dasha-tincs-atelopus-chilean-water-toad-melanophryniscus-suriname-leaf-toads.html#post819722)
> 
> 
> 
> Despite more being posted on kingsnake within a couple of days and the fact that since Melanophryniscus isn’t listed on CITES, Paraguay is under no obligation to set a quota see *http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/*
> *….. *
> 
> It was a increasing body of questionable statements that resulted in my decision to file the FOIA…….
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Well, the paperwork does state that those frogs were exported out of CR, and it's VALID paperwork. It's not like they are being funneled through a third party country. CR is actually REALLY good about making sure things are done correctly. 

Like I said from the beginning, you can never convince certain people of what they don't want it hear. Even with all the info in the world, they'll claim something else.



Ed said:


> Ahh, yes it must be a witch hunt..... simply because a person makes a bunch of odd and/or suspicious statements/claims, can't defend them and gets caught out on it.
> 
> So let it be a witch hunt... I'm done here. If anyone wants to see the FOIA report shoot me a e-mail via my contact information....
> 
> Ed


----------



## curlykid

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> While many species can be bred in captivity, up to this point very few can be raised sucsessfully in captivity. The aquarium hobby, and the saltwater hobby in particular has a lot of work to be done. To overcome the years of capturing fish with cyanide.


I know that most good hobby stores (LFS's) and online retailers such as Live aquaria purchase their fish from sources that responsibly collect. They catch a certain number of fish from a certain area during a small window of time every few months as to make sure populations are good. Most fish now are hand caught too, and it gives jobs to locals. Most people in the hobby are fully aware of irresponsible collection methods and deaths to those fish. Any half-smart hobbyist purchases their fish from trusted sources and not Petsmart...

EDIT: Oops didn't even read the whole thread... sorry for the random post guys.


----------



## Philsuma

Ah, the term 'Witch-hunt"....the term oft-used by some who wish to cover, conceal, obfuscate and just plain 'scare off'. It's a dismissive term when used incorrectly and being that it gets bandied about so casually, one that grates me, personally.

As Jake posted in a different thread...the definition of a 'Witch Hunt":

1. People posting /yelling about some issue that they know next to nothing about - hence all the noise and clammer.

2. People posting what they KNOW to be a lie or falsehood.

Neither of those is the case for Ed's FOI postings here. The mere fact that Ed is posting ANYTHING at all on this makes me journey over here from my forum to post my opinions on the matter. Remember, I said opinions. 

Even Juchems FOI request for the Frye / Michigan pumilio was not a witch hunt. It was a bit ham-handed and obtuse but it too was far from a 'witch hunt'.

I'm interested in all this and wish to know more.


----------



## Scott

BIG difference between wishing to know more and prosecution behavior.

s


Philsuma said:


> ... I'm interested in all this and wish to know more.


----------



## Philsuma

I'm not sure what you mean by 'prosecution behaviour" but I'm going to have to assume it's Justyn suing Ed, that you are refering too.

but I guess it could mean USFW taking action against Justyn.

See how confusing it gets ?

I think you know me by now Scott, and I'm all about getting as much info to the hobby as quickly as possible. Since Justyn sold more than a few of these animals already, I'd have to think we are justified in desiring quick access to the info.

I don't stand completely behind Ed in all this because again, all the info in the previous posts is very hard to interpret, for instance:

1.It is now discovered that Justyn used another import license / person to act as the agent of import. No biggie in and of itself and I'm ok with that much.

2. We know that @60 pumilio were legally exported from CR at the time of the hobby importation.

3. Are we left to believe that just because all the paperwork is stamped and signed, that imported animals can pass thru customs / USFW and still be illegal ?

I'd still like some clarification.


----------



## Scott

I think you have it backwards - but I'm not surprised.

s


Philsuma said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'prosecution behaviour" but I'm going to have to assume it's Justyn suing Ed, that you are refering too.


----------



## Philsuma

Scott said:


> I think you have it backwards - but I'm not surprised.
> 
> s



And since I still can't tell what you are referring to, due to all the scaredy-cat innuendo....well...we'll just leave it at that. And I too, am not the least bit surprised or expecting a change.


----------



## Sherman

Scott,

Respectfully:
Your comments ("witch hunt", "prosecution behavior" and now back handed insults) are not working to move this conversation forward. They are adding extra drama to an already touchy subject. 

Your comments have driven off one of the people having this conversation, leaving the issue unresolved. 

Why does Ed "really need to back off a bit on this one."? Do you have further evidence that Justin is totally on the up and up, or are you basing your stance on your belief that "he's trying to get legitimate information on his imports - to the best of his ability."?

Believe me, I want to believe.

Chris


----------



## Scott

I believe that Justin is providing as much information as he can - without giving away his source(s) (which is not in his interest as you might understand).

I also believe that, having answered the initial query, some folks have shifted their target a bit (thus the terms I've used).

I do not like the idea of illegal importation or smuggling any more than most of us froggers. I also do not believe that is what Justin is doing.

... and if I ever find out otherwise, his a$$ is grass.

s


Sherman said:


> ... Do you have further evidence that Justin is totally on the up and up, or are you basing your stance on your belief that "he's trying to get legitimate information on his imports - to the best of his ability."


----------



## Sherman

So to spin this back to the original purpose: 

There is no large organization that has influence over both the field collectors and the general public in the dart frog world as there is in the marine aquarium hobby. The dart frog hobby is a collection of individuals not represented by a unifying entity. Therefore, there will be no driving force to steer the dart frog hobby. It is up to us to support the endevours and projects that have a positive effect.

One of the leading methods to conserve these frogs, is to protect the areas that these frogs originate from by giving the local population a financial incentive to protect them. This can be accomplished by eco-tourism, captive breeding programs, __________ (insert your ideas here. Many more ideas are needed.), etcetera.

Tropical fish have been successful in this plan. It is my understanding that cardinal tetras are effectively farmed in the wild by natives that protect them and rely on them for income. (sorry no citation to support this.)

This principal is currently being put to use at Red Frog Beach. The resort there has a contract to supply natives with water and electricity, but a clause allows the resort to cancel the contract if the local children are found to be "mistreating" the frogs. I.e. putting them in cups to show tourists for profit.
NOTE: this is a pi$$ poor example of the economic leverage that can be used to benefit the frogs. This example is fraught with terrible politics and ill motives. IMO.

So the ideal solution, that I can see, is where local people protect the land where frogs breed, to sustainably harvest the frogs and other natural goods to sell. How do we get here?

Although Justin's project is not quite "ideal" in the light of conservation efforts, it represents a step in the right direction and could grow into something better. The burden of proof is on him though. I wish he was more forthright with some of his information from the very beginning.

I could have a sparkling jumpsuit and claim it to be from Elvis Presley. In order to sell it, and have any type of value, the burden of proof would be on me to convince potential buyers that what they are getting is the real deal and provide some provenance.

For the record: *I am not claiming that Justin has ever lied or misled anyone.*

Chris

...and because this thread needs some color:

In situ _O. pumilio_ on Isla Bastimentos.


----------



## winstonamc

I've been away from the board for a few months and glad to see its still the same place I've always known  

Maybe we can try to resteer this back to the OP topic. I've been learning a bit about certification schemes such as renewable tropical forest goods and fisheries and keep thinking about how what with our hobby's conservation wherewithal and knowledge (and avidity for hammering out import trails!) that we could maybe use this hobby as an incubator for a herp-wide certification scheme.

I'm taking Ocean and Coastal Law and Policy and one of our visiting professors was one of the founders of the Marine Stewardship Council, which uses standards to certify different fisheries as a certification body. I asked him in office hours if anyone had ever tried to create a certification scheme for the tropical reef hobby and he said there had been a movement to create a certification scheme with standards regarding the use of cyanide for fishing. He said though that the thing, despite all indications to the contrary, never really got off the ground. He seemed to think that the industry just wasn't big enough to deal with the costs of certification, such as auditing.

But, every time I come across these sustainability certification schemes, I keep thinking about how awesome and conscientious this hobby generally is. We have captive breeders here at the hobby level who would probably love to have some kind of certification of being herp sustainable, the zoos probably would, and we have folks like Mark Pepper. It's a long and complicated road getting any accredited certification scheme together with all of the necessary standards developed, but if there's any cottage industry online that could do it from the hobbyist up, I think it's this one.

Thoughts? 

If anyone is interested in talking more about this, I'd love to get a conversation going here and I know a bit about the process as I was working on developing ethical farm labor schemes for an international development organization this winter in boston.


----------



## skylsdale

Winstonamc, we announced this as a possible program via TWI at Microcosm 2013. There is a lot to plan for such a program, obviously, but it is something we are discussing.


----------



## Sitting bull frog

Ed said:


> The conservation through captive breeding fallacy... See http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511
> and http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-4.html#post586940


I read them thoroughly through... So much to talk about, where do I start. The first one focuses on genetics; outbreeding, inbreeding, adapting to captivity, losing wild type fitness etc.. I agree that these are problems, and should be prevented if possible. Where I disagree is I don't see it as nearly the big deal that it seems many are making it out to be. All this study on whats happening to the genetics as the animals are on their way out of the wild and back etc.. I see it as trying to nit-pick our way to an unattainable ideal of perfection. Implying that if the genetics can't be preserved perfectly then the "pet trade" angle is a total lost cause. Almost all, if not all, of those studies don't actually touch on anything new. That research, that knowledge, has already been acquired and is water under the bridge at this point. Almost a good example of what happens in a time when postgraduates run out of things to research about.  
One citation is "Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European treefrog". My first thought to the people who wrote it was "ya think?".
1) I believe in the face of a species' extinction on the horizon it's better to have some members of the species in captivity than none at all, even if it means they will be "more adapted to captivity than the wild". As fast as they evolved in captivity they can evolve to survive in the wild, that's how evolution works. Genetics are always changing whether you want them to or not. 

2)The stigma against inbreeding needs to tone down a little. In the rainforest, some frogs only exist in small populations on a single mountain top, confined by weather and natural barriers. You don't think they run into their cousin or sister more than the average frog? They've been surviving like this for millions of years and the species lives on. Remote islands don't get populated by tortoises and other animals that came in the hundreds. They got populated by a couple, or one pregnant, member(s) of a species that got knocked off course by wind, or tsunami; they start an entire island species that way, with inbreeding as a requirement. Domestication of dogs has been happening for hundreds (or thousands?) of years. Lots of inbreeding, and yet dogs still go back and forth between ferrel and domestic. Humans are one of the greatest example of inbreeding ever. Anthropologists believe humans are descendents from 1 man and 1 women 50,000 years ago. This is old news though, now days they're focusing on what a critically endangered species we were back then. In more recent times when we were tribal we inbred frequently within our own and neighboring small tribes. Inbreeding was a requirement for our survival and look at us now. I'm not saying inbreeding is to be ignored; I'm saying we probably don't need to be thinking dumb "blue ridge mountain frogs" when we hear the term inbreeding. As a biologist I could go on and on about this likely making this post that much more unnecessarily long and boring.

I agree with you that genetic degradation will result in lower survival of animals released in the wild; but I don't think that warrants writing them off as unsuitable for reseeding programs; in time their fitness will go back up to where it was once wild again; they may even lose some of their racial identity. like I said, my solutions aren't ideal or perfect; I'm looking for a solution to an immediate emergency which isn't being addressed by anyone else in a practical manner. We don't have time or resources to build zoos / conservation facilities / labs for 3,000 threatened amphibians around the world (or all the other animals for that matter).



> Again, this is a bunch of crud.... there are abundant examples in the conservation literature (see the above two links for references you can dig up yourself).... If the locals are allowed to engage in sustainable harvests and exports, it works wonders...


I have this to say:

" This idea is based on the idea of protectionism where the attempt is made to prohibit the take of the animals and/or damage to its environment. *This method of conservation is really only effective when large amounts of money and resources are devoted to the protection of the animal and its habitat as this method tends to be very unpopular with the local population and often the local politicians.* A method that is often more acceptable and successful is to develop a program in which the local population can sustainably harvest either the animal and/or its habitat. *The problem is that the science to support sustainable harvesting is often lacking resulting in either little or no protection to the population(s) or an extreme conservative response totally prohibiting harvesting of the animal and/or its habitat. Both of these extremes while very common are not popular with many people interested in usage and/or conservation. *So what can the average hobbyist do to support conservation? The first thing they can do is to either join or donate to an organization⃰ that actually supports conservation of species in which they have interest. *The second thing they can do is to work to sustain the captive populations in the long term by managing the relatedness of their animals. The third thing they can do support breeders/importers/exporters that are working sustainably with wild populations and the fourth and final thing is to not purchase animals that are smuggled or have a high probability of being smuggled.* " -Ed

Seems we're kind of on the same page. I think our perspectives differ on how easy getting the locals to contribute _in the sustainable way we want_ will be. I look to the fishing industry as an example. With some of the toughest regulations and treaties in the world the ocean is going to hell in a hand-basket. Simply because poor people in poor countries aren't hit home by the concept "if you harvest it all now, and make all your money now, you wont have anything to harvest in the future." It's so simple, and yet the world is failing at sustainable harvests everywhere we look. Many of these people consider themselves adaptable, migrants, to the point they can exhaust all the resources in their market then just move on to the next money making job in another market. Thats why I contend it's about money; and it's time we conservationist tried to use _the way the world works_ to solve problems rather than _try to change the world_. In other words we can't stop illegal or legal wild collecting with policy due to the tediousness and high costs it would involve; so lets support policy that works with it and manages it (the pet trade). Lets tell the government to lighten up a bit on ther permits for zoos, aquariums, conservation facilities, who are doing active conservation research and breeding programs.



> This is shifting the blame... yes habitat destruction is the number one problem but the rarer a species gets the more desirable it is for someone to have it so you have an economic drive to collect them.... This is where the hobby puts the final nails in the coffins... It's been documented in a number of species... ..... What your argument essentially is, is it's okay because we're not hurting them as much as habitat destruction.... It's not an either or proposition but an additive one.. the cumulative effect is the issue....


Yes habitat destruction and hobby are additive. Yes hobby does sometimes put the final nails into the coffin... And to me this is an absolutely unacceptable consequence. It's a gamble whether it will be saved. I don't like to gamble. Which is why I propose a managed /oversight of the wild caught pet trade rather than a prohibited one. Yes I'm shifting the blame. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was shifting it 100%. Everywhere I turn there's just so much more vehemency aimed at the hobby putting nails into the coffin rather than habitat loss. To me people are focusing their anger at the stars of hobby while missing the moon of habitat. If habitat destruction was able to decimate 30,000 members of a species leaving 500 left; it's pretty safe to say simply upping its "protection" status and prohibiting collecting will do much to save it. Anything short of major conservation efforts in such a case is a gamble. 

I do think there's a lot people could do about habitat loss if they really gave 2 grains of salt about the problem. Saving habitat is far easier/cheaper than regulating/enforcing the import of "protected" animals; yet people aren't talking about that. The solutions seem so backwards to me.




> This is hogwash... They are typically confiscated and held at a quarantine facility.. If the paperwork isn't corrected it ends up at a zoo or other institution.. They haven't been doing this as regular part of confiscations since the late 1970s or early 1980s...


That's how it's suppose to be...
They are typically confiscated and held at a quarantine facility which is typically a non-climate controlled spare closet in a fish and wildlife office or customs warehouse. Zoos have no idea how many of these animals die "in quarantine" compared to the ones they get called to take. For years I've been fighting ferociously, trying to get a hold anyone who cares in these facilities when these animals arrive; to save these animals. It always amazes me that all the staff of fish and wildlife and everybody else just laughs it off, all of them I run into, wondering why I care about worthless little animals.



> Where did you get the idea that the CDC is responsible??? Wrong agency.... USDA (specifically APHIS) is the correct agency...


I got the idea from the fact that CDC and USDA work together and CDC influences them what to do at times; such as things relating to bird flu. But I stand corrected, it was the USDA vets I've witnessed countless times unnecessarily kill birds using technicalities from the book such as "it could have bird flu" simply out of laziness to follow the proper protocol that could save the threatened birds.


----------



## Splash&Dash

Scott said:


> ... and if I ever find out otherwise, his a$$ is grass.
> 
> s


Doesn't seem like it's going to happen with you actively discouraging discussion on such issues, no?


----------



## d.crockett

Sitting bull frog said:


> Anthropologists believe humans are descendents from 1 man and 1 women 50,000 years ago.


For what it's worth, as an anthropologist I can tell you that you have conflated some incongruous ideas here. I assume you are referring to the concept of "mitochondrial eve". Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia To clarify, she is the most recent female (about 200,000 years ago) to posses an unbroken line of matrilineal decent until the modern day. She was not the only woman alive at the time, and not the only one to have descendants living today, just the only one to have an unbroken female line of descent. There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam, however the two are generally accepted to have existed several hundred thousand years apart. Although human genetics have experienced bottlenecks over the years, the population was never less than several thousand. Without the proper context this type of information can be incredibly misleading, so I wanted to take a moment and clarify. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled witch hunt


----------



## winstonamc

skylsdale said:


> Winstonamc, we announced this as a possible program via TWI at Microcosm 2013. There is a lot to plan for such a program, obviously, but it is something we are discussing.


I'd love to hear more. It is a pretty complicated process from what I understand
You have to create a standard scheme that needs to have a standard setting body, then you need a certification body, which should be distinct from the standard setting body, which then needs to be accredited by an international accreditation body based on ISO (Int'l Standardization Organization) documents

Here's an example:

Certification, Verification and Validation Services | Rainforest Alliance
Note that Rainforest Alliance and RA-CERT are distinct entities

If this gains steam, I will be a lawyer in a year *fingers crossed* and would love to help


----------



## Ed

Justin,



Blue_Pumilio said:


> Ed, people can be wrong on what they remembered correctly, as I was and later stated that. It's ok to be wrong, it doesn't make me less of a person. As for CB boas being sent out, they are, and you stated this yourself.


Actually, I never said that they were sending out cb boas... you said it.. 
here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-3.html#post820084 



Blue_Pumilio said:


> That would be cool, but someone needs to start a facility for breeding in Brazil first. We already get CB boas and tortoises out of there, so I guess it is possible


Again, here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-3.html#post820089 

I called you on it http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-3.html#post820130

and you tried to twist what I said so it that I agreed with you here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-4.html#post820193

and I called BS on it here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-4.html#post827736 

And to further back it up, since you have repeatedly claimed that the US is getting cb boas from Brazil, I gave you a little bit of benefit of the doubt and filed a FOIA request with USF&W to cover the last couple of years in case the CITES trade database wasn't recently updated... Guess what?? This is what they had to say... 



> This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of July 29, 2013, for "the number of Boa constrictors that have been exported to the United States from Brazil for the period of January 1 2011 through July 1 2013." *We have queried our Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) and could locate no records that are responsive to your request. We have no records of any boas exported from Brazil during the requested time period.*


This backs up the trade database as to zero..captive bred and born boas exported to the US... The six that were exported from Brazil in the last ten years were wild caught and sent to another country far from the US... 



Blue_Pumilio said:


> Herps are currently being farmed and exported from there. I've never imported any herps from Brazil, just fish, so my knowledge has plenty of room to grow.


Which is it? In this response you are claiming that you aren't that familiar with it... yet in a different post you paint an entirely different picture... from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...cal-experience-site-no-more-4.html#post820193 



Blue_Pumilio said:


> I'm VERY familiar with Brazil regs/laws. Heck, I'm likely only one of the very few active board members here who actively imports/exports.


You either are informed on it or your not...


For some odd reason, you keep making statements that raise suspicions or engage in actions which when taken in whole, make it look like you are out to misrepresent yourself and your knowledge (for example, the repeated claim about the boas because you are very familiar with Brazil)... and when you get called on them, you jump up and down and scream it's a witch hunt... It's not a witch hunt if you can be shown to be wrong particularly when it is repeatedly incorrect.... 

*If you don't make incorrect statements and claims, then we won't cross paths... If you do, and I can prove it, I will as with other people throw the BS* *flag...*

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## dravenxavier

Sherman said:


> One of the leading methods to conserve these frogs, is to protect the areas that these frogs originate from by giving the local population a financial incentive to protect them. This can be accomplished by eco-tourism, captive breeding programs, __________ (insert your ideas here. Many more ideas are needed.), etcetera.
> 
> Tropical fish have been successful in this plan. It is my understanding that cardinal tetras are effectively farmed in the wild by natives that protect them and rely on them for income. (sorry no citation to support this.)


The Fishery | Project Piaba

This is correct. The "Buy a Fish, Save a Tree" project/project Piaba advocate sustainable harvest of wild-collected fish to help conserve habitat. There was an article not too long ago pointing out the concerns that the influx of CB cardinal tetras may have too heavy an impact on the wild caught fish trade (which currently supports a community of about 40,000 people, I believe). While, so far, loggers/miners/farmers/etc. have not been allowed to destroy the area for their own purposes by the large population who rely on the aquatic resources, the financial pressure of a falling wild-collection industry may force reconsideration.

Project Piaba is now working with other countries, such as India, to establish similar sustainable collection systems.

Money talks. Like the situation with Ecuador's rainforest.

Crowdfunding Initiative Pays Ecuador to Save Rainforest - Culture-ist


----------



## VAPump

I love all the flak hobbyists tend to catch. Considering it's generally miniscule compared to the real problems which are habitat destruction, deforestation and development of land for humans. But I guess we're an easier target because people can't do much about growing population in 3rd world countries, and we're just here doing our thing.


----------



## skylsdale

VAPump said:


> I love all the flak hobbyists tend to catch. Considering it's generally miniscule compared to the real problems which are habitat destruction, deforestation and development of land for humans. But I guess we're an easier target because people can't do much about growing population in 3rd world countries, and we're just here doing our thing.


This is a ridiculously oversimplified misunderstanding of the situation. 

Yes, _globally_, loss of habitat is one of the biggest threats to _global_ amphibian populations.

However, if you look at certain amphibian populations that have a value specific (only) to amphibian enthusiasts, then the hobby has had drastic negative influences on some of these wild populations. An example is the black and red lehmanni morph whose natural habitat is doing amazingly well (thanks in part to the FARC). It is disappearing due to illegal collection/export for the amphibian trade, and has been collected by the thousands for the better part of a decade. I heard from someone who recently visited the area and found only a couple frogs in a place that used to literally be crawling with them. That was not habitat destruction, it was not chytrid: it was the trade. A similar thing can be said for the 'highland' form of sirensis/lamasi.

I agree that it's unfair to blame the trade for things the trade has not done. But the trade is not innocent, and it needs to be willing to own up to the ways in which it is negatively impacting wild amphibian populations.


----------



## VAPump

skylsdale said:


> This is a ridiculously oversimplified misunderstanding of the situation.
> 
> Yes, _globally_, loss of habitat is one of the biggest threats to _global_ amphibian populations.
> 
> However, if you look at certain amphibian populations that have a value specific (only) to amphibian enthusiasts, then the hobby has had drastic negative influences on some of these wild populations. An example is the black and red lehmanni morph whose natural habitat is doing amazingly well (thanks in part to the FARC). It is disappearing due to illegal collection/export for the amphibian trade, and has been collected by the thousands for the better part of a decade. I heard from someone who recently visited the area and found only a couple frogs in a place that used to literally be crawling with them. That was not habitat destruction, it was not chytrid: it was the trade. A similar thing can be said for the 'highland' form of sirensis/lamasi.
> 
> I agree that it's unfair to blame the trade for things the trade has not done. But the trade is not innocent, and it needs to be willing to own up to the ways in which it is negatively impacting wild amphibian populations.


I agree there are populations in trouble and collecting can make it worse, but its usually too late when the habitat is dead and people stop collecting. IUCN says this about the species

" The major threats are habitat loss and degradation, as a result of agricultural development (illegal crops), logging, and human settlement, and pollution, resulting from the spraying of illegal crops. It occasionally appears in the illegal pet trade. "

But by all means if you want, set the example and stop buying/keeping frogs.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

VAPump said:


> I agree there are populations in trouble and collecting can make it worse, but its usually too late when the habitat is dead and people stop collecting. IUCN says this about the species
> 
> " The major threats are habitat loss and degradation, as a result of agricultural development (illegal crops), logging, and human settlement, and pollution, resulting from the spraying of illegal crops. It occasionally appears in the illegal pet trade. "
> 
> But by all means if you want, set the example and stop buying/keeping frogs.


Just a couple of quick questions VAPump.
1. Are you in really Kerry Kreiger in disguise?
2. How much experience do you have with Dart Frogs? I see that you're a new member of the forum.
3. What exactly are you trying to say with your signature "Non-permissive environment specialist"?
4. Are you also an expert on gun control since your avatar pictures you with an assault rifle?


----------



## Sherman

VAPump,

I am sorry that you feel that hobbyists are "targeted" on this site. This site deals with keeping dart frogs in captivity, not agricultural practices and land use. Even though these issues are important, they are not the focus of this forum. If you look carefully you will find that conservation programs almost always have land use initiatives to help restore and keep habitat intact.



VAPump said:


> I agree there are populations in trouble and collecting can make it worse, but its usually too late when the habitat is dead and people stop collecting.


To completely disregard collection pressures is irresponsible. If more thought was put into the collecting before populations get into trouble, there would be less of an impact.



VAPump said:


> But by all means if you want, set the example and stop buying/keeping frogs.


I will gladly set an example by not buying the Wild Caught _O. pumilio_ imports that are erroneously labeled as "Farm Raised". Further more I will buy frogs from the likes of Tesoros de Columbia to help support sustainable trade models. I encourage you to do this also. 

Chris Sherman

P.S. Tesoros protects land in Columbia.


----------



## skylsdale

Sherman said:


> P.S. Tesoros protects land in Columbia.


As does WIKIRI and Understory Enterprises...and that fact that they are putting money/effort into conserving and maintaining land and wild frog populations is what distinguishes actual CONSERVATION from groups just providing frogs. If nothing is being given back to the frogs in the wild, conservation isn't actually be done...and many people in the hobby don't seem to understand this.

Now, an entity may be sustainably collecting frogs for distribution (which is impossible to know unless they have performed official population density studies on the populations they are collecting from--a good thing to ask the "farms" providing frogs--or they are collecting a set limited number of founding groups from which CB frogs will be produced and sold). Sustainable collection is great--again, assuming you have the actual data to know that your rate of collection is sustainable for the given population of frogs--but that, in and of itself, is not conservation. Nothing is necessarily being conserved, just taking from the wild at a lower rate than traditional trade practices. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, but it is not the same as conservation and I see the two terms being used interchangeably all the time in hobbyist conversations.


----------



## Julio

I agree that some money has to be given back, i have made a personal pledge to my self of the frogs that i acquire from the consercation organizations that what ever i breed and sell at least %25 of it will be donated to the organization that helped in getting them in, so if when my black footed terribilis do breed and if i sell the off springs, that is what i will do from now on.


----------



## LoganR

We also have examples of locals being empowered in the dart frog hobby - like Tesoros de Colombia. When locals receive a fair market value for PDFs and other natural resources, then they have an incentive to preserve the local environment. Hopefully enough hobbiests will recognize the value of this and support their efforts.


----------



## Splash&Dash

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Just a couple of quick questions VAPump.
> 1. Are you in really Kerry Kreiger in disguise?
> 2. How much experience do you have with Dart Frogs? I see that you're a new member of the forum.
> 3. What exactly are you trying to say with your signature "Non-permissive environment specialist"?
> 4. Are you also an expert on gun control since your avatar pictures you with an assault rifle?



I'm heavily paraphrasing here, but Sam Sweet tends to look at hobby preservation as rather worthless (if I remember correctly) when discussing conservation and I would agree. If these animals are not functional pieces of an eco-system then they are little more than oddities and museum pieces


----------



## Splash&Dash

LoganR said:


> We also have examples of locals being empowered in the dart frog hobby - like Tesoros de Colombia. When locals receive a fair market value for PDFs and other natural resources, then they have an incentive to preserve the local environment. Hopefully enough hobbiests will recognize the value of this and support their efforts.


actually this one is a bit tricky, being that it requires the establishment of a "long view" within the group doing the collecting. Which people tend not to do, as a general rule


----------

