# license to sell frogs?



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

a local pet shop ( deals only with herps) told me i had to have a license to sell them my offspring. interesting considering they sell local WC snakes people bring in. i tried to contact FF&WC but cant get through. thanks josh


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

well come to find out there is a $40 permit to sell frogs and freshwater fish in FL. 

http://myfwc.com/permits/rfd.pdf
the link to this reads "Resident Fresh Water Fish & Frog Dealer's License"


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

They probably think the frogs are wild and poisonous. I've never heard of that before. Try and contact one of the big dogs like Patrick Nabors or someone to see what they say.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

"*Regulations Regarding the Buying and Selling of Reptiles and Amphibians:*
Pursuant to Rule 68A-6.0021, F.A.C., it shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or transfer any wildlife to or from an unpermitted entity within Florida. This means that you cannot sell animals without a license (see above), and you cannot buy animals from a person who does not have a license. The
recipient’s name, address and the license number shall be entered into the transferor’s records and made available for inspection by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) employees for a period of one year after the transfer. No person shall possess any wildlife requiring
a permit for personal use, or any wildlife for sale or exhibition, without documentation of the source and supplier of such wildlife."

taken from here:http://myfwc.com/permits/JJRep_Frog_Regs.pdf


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

This keeps repeating "Wildlife". I wonder if this refers to local (Florida) wildlife like the Anoles, Green Treefrogs, various snakes and whatnot. It doesn't say anything about hobbyists or "pets" for that matter.

Is it possible?


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

Aparently im also required by law to provide a water feature....."5) Amphibians: Aquatic amphibians shall be kept in water filled tanks, or aquaria. Semiaquatic amphibians shall be kept in enclosures, tanks, or aquaria, with a water area and a dry area that shall permit moving and turning. Both the dry area and the water area shall provide room to accommodate all animals in the enclosure simultaneously."

anthone some of this refers to native species but you a correct, it dosent specify. there is some info on requirements on enclosures for lizards and snakes which im sure a LOT of pet stores are in violation of.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

As dart frogs are terrestrial and neither aquatic nor semiaquatic, no water feature would be required. And, yes, Florida law requires a permit to sell any amphibians, period.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

cat, could one argue that since frogs need water at tads they could be semiaquatuc? im not arguing, i agree completely with you, just wondering if there is an official deffinition.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

James Bond will return in "License to Sell...frogs".


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

In Fl, you need a permit to sell dart frogs, I wouldn't recomend doing a show without one. F&W routinely do checks.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

a last thought and ill stop posting every min......would me purchasing a permit be a way of admiting i have animals i do/did not have a permit to buy to begin with?


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

It must be easy to get one, b/c a lot people have them.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

just printed mine out, its $40 a year.


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

josh raysin said:


> a last thought and ill stop posting every min......would me purchasing a permit be a way of admiting i have animals i do/did not have a permit to buy to begin with?


Not necessarily. It doesn't say you have to have a license to BUY them, just to sell them. It'd be hard for them to try and prove you sold some without a license if you don't really have a paper trail or whatever.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2006)

I wouldn't worry about your previous purchases because a) you probably aren't selling off your collection and b) the statement you posted said you need to keep the record (license #) for only one year. You could always just claim they are over a year old


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

anthone,
Pursuant to Rule 68A-6.0021, F.A.C., it shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or transfer any wildlife to or from an unpermitted entity within Florida.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Since you need the same liscense to sell fish, it would be illegal to buy a fillet of grouper or a grouper sandwich if it worked the way you say.


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

josh raysin said:


> anthone,
> Pursuant to Rule 68A-6.0021, F.A.C., it shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or transfer any wildlife to or from an unpermitted entity within Florida.


Then it looks like Petsmart, Petco and PetWorld are all going to jail...

Get my point?


----------



## Frank H (Nov 3, 2005)

Im pretty sure petco, petsmart and petworld have licences.. .


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> Pursuant to Rule 68A-6.0021, F.A.C., it shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or transfer any wildlife *to* or from *an unpermitted entity within Florida.*


Pet stores very well may have permits, but their buyers, not likely.

I'd be very suprised if this law covers anything but native Flordia species.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "This keeps repeating "Wildlife". I wonder if this refers to local (Florida) wildlife like the Anoles, Green Treefrogs, various snakes and whatnot. It doesn't say anything about hobbyists or "pets" for that matter."

In regards to regulations, wildlife and exotic animals refer to anything that is not a common domestic animal, in other words, anything that isn't a domestic house cat, domestic dogs, chickens, pigeons, cows, pigs..... This has been the interpretation in every state conservation officers I have asked. 

As the regulation reads, he (and the person he aquired them from) would need a permit to buy and sell within the state. If he purchased the animals from an out of state source (hint) he could get the permit after the fact. 
For example here in NJ, I add the animals after I get them to my permit.... 

Ed


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

So what does that mean when John and Jane Doe take their son Johnny Doe to buy an Iguana at Petsmart in Florida? I worked at Petsmart here for a while, we never once were told to ask customers if they had permits to buy lizards or frogs.

I feel this is being misinterpreted.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

No it doesn't. If you read the supplied information (via the link) you will see that this relates specifically to individuals selling wildlife not pet stores selling to individuals. I suspect that the pet stores have a different permit covering the sales of wildlife.. 

Ed


----------



## nburns (May 3, 2005)

In one of the first paragraphs of this document it clearly states that the permit is only for those are are collecting for the purpose of selling. So the average hobbist who just has a collection for personal enjoyment and not to raise and sell offspring doesn't need one.

Where was this found? I'd be interested in knowing what the law is in other states as well.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

it was taken from http://www.myfwc.com
i called FWC and asked if i had to have a permit to sell dart frogs and they said "yes" and refered me to the permit i linked at the beginning.

also i asked the local store if they would be interested in my frogs offspring, which started this whole thing, so i AM interested in selling them.also if you read on it talks about non-native venemous snake enclouses and 6' long lizards, which i have never seen running around here in FL. so it isnt just concerning native species.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

so i just came across this http://myfwc.com/permits/class3memo.pdfwhich states you do not have to have a permit to keep unprotected, non-venemous reptiles and amphibians etc....
but, again i WANT to be able to sell them.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

GD this is confusing..."Regulation of foreign animals

1) It is unlawful to import for sale or use, or to release within this state, any species of the animal kingdom not indigenous to Florida without having obtained a permit to do so from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission."
cut from here http://www.myfwc.com/captive/cwr-4.html


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

You're not importing frogs.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Dude, send in the application, pay your $40, and stop panicking.

Breathe in...
Breathe out...
Count to ten...


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

ok you have to have a $40 permit to sell frogs, they are grouped with freshwater fish here http://myfwc.com/permits/petshop.pdf but on the same document it refes to non-venemous amphibians as class III animals which do not require a licene to possess for personal use... but class III animals require a $50 permit to sell. ok im tired, a lil confused...actually very confused, im going to bed.

haha, cat im not paniking i just think its interesting/contradicting...i also think its more hastle than most (including myself) are going to do. when the FWC starts raiding houses for darts, ill get a permit. when i see "illegial" people at work everyday doing construction, i know the gov dont give a **** about my frogs.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Not to be an @$$ here, but I believe that all amphibians fit under the "non-venemous amphibians" category. If anyone can point me to a currently living, venomous, amphibian, I would love to read up on it...
That sort of stuff happens a lot here in Utah, only people are always referring to frogs as "venomous reptiles"
....
~B


----------



## MJ (Jun 16, 2005)

Utah? I thought you were on an island?


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Ack! Just noticed I haven't changed my 'location' yet... was on the island doing field work for 7 months w/ _auratus_. Moved back and didn't realize i forgot to change my location hehehe
sorry,
B


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

accoding to the wikipedia entry there are venomous amphibians... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venom_%28poison%29 They do not list species though. 

If you want to use this definition to defend the keeping of amphibians, I hope you have deep pockets for the legal battle (if it occurs). To the average laymember of the public and the courts these terms are synonymous and there isn't a distinction. You would have to hope that you could get the courts to accept the technical loophole.... 

Ed


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

"But officer, their not poisenous, now"


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

after speaking with several people at FWC 
1. you need an ESC license ($50) to import them. here "import" means from out of state into FL. This also allows you to sell them and allows public viewing. 
2. you can have them shipped to you without inspection.
3. you must report any new frogs you aquire, in addition to the ones you report at the times of application.
edit 4. you do NOT have to have a permit to own them for personal use or purchase them as long as they are aquired within the state, from a licensed person of course.
heres the application. http://myfwc.com/permits/class_three_wild.pdf


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

Well, venomous and poisonous, as we all should know, are 2 different things. I didn't realize there were any venomous amphibians. To my understanding, venmous animals must deliver their toxin to the victim unlike poisonous where its done by touch or other non-purposeful means.

I guess I could see the fire salamander being venomous... sorta kinda...

Neat topic.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> To my understanding, venmous animals must deliver their toxin to the victim unlike poisonous where its done by touch or other non-purposeful means.


Pretty much... the distinction between venom and poison is really simple:

*"Venom is injected; poison is ingested."* This little mantra will work well, though some poisons can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin... Still, people (including herpetologists, or at least amateur herpetologists) get this wrong ALL the time (ie talking about "poisonous snakes" etc)

I would stake a lot of money on the claim that there are no venomous amphibians, and there are no poisonous reptiles, but hey, I've lost quite a bit of money before...

As a quick edit: I want to be clear that the distinction between venom and poison is real, and the confounding of the two is an artifact of societal ignorance. The distinction is also medically important, as poisons and venoms approach and attack organs and organ systems in (usually) very different ways.


----------



## bgexotics (Feb 24, 2004)

The whole permit thing is probably stricter in Florida since a large amount of importers and fish farms are located there. This probably is a means of regulating who sells fish and amphibians there. I know that do a reptile show in Florida, you must buy a $50 license to sell pets in the state of Florida. This is enforced at the shows. A friend of mine from Kentucky had a few animals of his own on the table of a well-known snake breeder and was placed in jail for not having his own permit despite the fact that the breeder did have a permit.

Here in Kentucky you are supposed to have a transportation permit to receive any shipments of "wildlife" aka reptiles and amphibians or bring in any new herps from out of state. This costs $25 per a shipment or $250 a year. Generally you just give them a list of any possible reptile or amphibian you may purchase and large quotas and pay the money. Also to sell any native species, you need a captive propegation permit ($100 a year).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "I would stake a lot of money on the claim that there are no venomous amphibians, and there are no poisonous reptiles, but hey, I've lost quite a bit of money before..."

How much? I do take pay pal.... Do you want to make a bet for the amphibian and a seperate bet for the reptiles??


Ed


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

Lets see the venomous amphib you got Ed. Its gotta be alive currently, no extinct crap!


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

the killer tiger salamander http://www.dendroboard.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Pleurodeles waltl 

If the newt is compressed, then the ribs push through the venom gland injecting the venom into the tissue... 

Ed


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

Okay, I knew about this, but thought the Fire Salamander did it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Fire salamanders spray thier venom from the paratoid glands towards the eyes. So in some definitions this is a poison but then this could then be extrapolated to mean that spitting cobras are poisonous when they spray but venomous when they bite.. 

Ed


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

According to my "Golden Guide to Poisonous Animals:"

"Spiny Newts, found on the southern islands of Japan and the adjacent coast of China, have exceptionally long, branched ribs, their sharp tips piercing the skin through warts that consist of enlarged poison glands. The rib tips also carry small amounts of the poison when they jab into the mouth of an attacking predator. In humans the venom causes a burning pain for at least 20 minutes if the ribs puncture the skin."

Sounds like the critter you mentioned, Ed, but the species given is _Echinotriton andersoni_.

Couldn't find much on the web about it, just this little snippet:

"Spiney newts (such as _Echinotriton andersoni_) are armed with rows of wartlike poison glands down either side of their body. When threatened, these newts arch their bodies to force the tips of their needle-sharp ribs out through the glands, hopefully delivering poison to the soft flesh of a predator's mouth." http://www.bogleech.com/bio-misc.html

And the following, which doesn't mention venom per se:

"_E. andersoni _exhibits a stereotyped rigid anti-predator posture, during which the body is flattened and curled up and the hands and tail are raised; The species has elongated, sharp ribs with sharp epipleural processes, capable of piercing through the lateral warts (Brodie Jr et al., 1984)."

...A quote from the first of the following descriptions of _E. andersoni _& a related species:
http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi-bin/amphib_q ... =andersoni
http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi-bin/amphib_q ... inhaiensis

And some cute pictures:
http://www.rieo.net/amph/saramand/imori/ibo/ander.htm
http://www.caudata.org/cc/species/Echin ... soni.shtml


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Ed said:


> snip "I would stake a lot of money on the claim that there are no venomous amphibians, and there are no poisonous reptiles, but hey, I've lost quite a bit of money before..."
> 
> How much? I do take pay pal.... Do you want to make a bet for the amphibian and a seperate bet for the reptiles??
> 
> ...


Dendroboard as the new gaming mecca....our slogan is "What Happens Here Probably Is Better Off Staying Here" 8) 

Bill


----------



## audioandroid (Mar 13, 2005)

josh raysin said:


> anthone,
> Pursuant to Rule 68A-6.0021, F.A.C., it shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or transfer any wildlife to or from an unpermitted entity within Florida.


That rule is stating a hobbyist shouldn't buy from an unliscensed person. It falls on both the seller and the buyer if the seller is unlicensed. However unless it is a sale in public they really have no way to enforce, ie. show or pet store. 

i deal with USDA and Fish and game regularly at work. Beleive me they have better things to do than worry about personal hobbyists. Don't do a show with out a permit. Don't list on Kingsnake without one either. Most of thier attention is focused on personal safety in regards to animals that can hurt a human such as large exotics (tigers, lions) and venomous snakes. Way to many people try to have these animals. beleive it or not theres only a handful of agents that actually regulate the enitre state.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

In P. waltl, the spines can be expressed by pushing down on the rib points. One of the alternative common names for this species is also sharp-ribbed newt. (see http://www.caudata.org/cc/species/Pleur ... altl.shtml) 

This species has a similar method of defense as Echinotrition (and Tylototriton). 

Ed


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Man...didn't mean to start a huge venom/poison discussion hehehe
anyway, is the above example really an example of a venomous amphibian? I was under the impression that venom is used to get prey and that poison is used to prevent you from becoming prey...
~B


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "under the impression that venom is used to get prey and that poison is used to prevent you from becoming prey... "endsnip

No this is not correct. Otherwise insects that use venom as a defense (such as bees) would be poisonous instead of venomous. 
This could also be used to argue that the Gila Monster and Beaded Lizard are not venomous and are instead poisonous. These two lizards feed on animals and eggs that do not need venom to subdue them. In addition the venom is very well designed to induce the maximal amount of pain. 

The distinction is typically drawn between whether the toxin is injected (such as with a fang or spine) or absorbed passively (such as in the digestive tract). However this is not a clear cut distinction as there are often significant overlap between the function of the toxin (such as seen in spitting cobras, and fire salamanders) and to further confuse the issue, there are technically venomous plants (like stinging nettles) that contain mechanisms to ingect toxins.. However this distinction of often not recognized by the lay public. 

Ed 

Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> In P. waltl, the spines can be expressed by pushing down on the rib points. One of the alternative common names for this species is also sharp-ribbed newt.


Ed,

I stand squarely and clearly corrected. 

And good point about the ambiguity surrounding the spitting cobra... I'm still calling it venomous, though! And I maintain that there does not exist a reptile that secretes a poison a la the amphibians, nor one that has poisonous flesh a la puffer fish (I suppose you could claim that eating venom glands would be a bad idea, but actually I believe many venoms are inert if ingested). I think, in general "no poisonous reptiles, no venomous amphibians" works *about* as well as most "rules" in biology.

And I stand by "venom is injected, poison ingested" all the way.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> No this is not correct. Otherwise insects that use venom as a defense (such as bees) would be poisonous instead of venomous.


I think that bees/ants acts as a special case. Their use of venom is still considered venom because I believe that it is an ancestral trait which evolved as a mechanism by which the non-eusocial ancestor captured prey (either for food or food for larvae). So, while it is not currently used to capture prey, it's initial evolutionary function was.

Ed, you have a very good point and, at least IMHO, a very good definition...i think if we use the "method of delivery" definition, it would be much more clear cut. 

Anyway, the venom/poison distinction definitely has quite a few exceptions and it's great to get so much input from all of you. Sorry about hijacking the thread...it was very much not my intention...

~B


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "nor one that has poisonous flesh a la puffer fish " endsnip 

Are you really sure about that??? 

There are records of deaths in humans from consuming turtles of the genus Terrapene that had fed on Amanita mushrooms and had the toxins stored in the turtles tissues... 

Also there are records of toxic reactions from the consumption of the South-Eastern Five lined skinks (see Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians " National Audebon Society.1979 ISBN 0-394-50824-6. Authers John L. Behler, Curator of Herpetology at the wildlife Conservation Society, and F. Wayne King, Curator of Herpetology at the Florida State Museum of Natural History.)

snip "I believe many venoms are inert if ingested). " endsnip

This is not the case particuarly with herp toxins as many of these are extremely stable and are not denatured in the stomach. These may be minimally absorbed if there are no openings in the digestive tract but keep in mind that many of these toxins are able to breakdown cells on exposure. 

Ed 

Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Are you really sure about that???


No. However, all records/reports *I've seen* are unsubstantiated or ambiguous. The case of terrapins you cited may be an exception, I don't know (again, I haven't asserted certainty anywhere here, nor meant to imply it), but I have NOT heard a definitive report of a species- or genus-wide prevalence of a poison, unlike some puffer fish, which reliably contain lethal levels of tetrodatoxin (others too?) in certain tissues. Do you recall if all members of the terrapin genus or species were toxic, or just a few individuals? I'd be really interested to learn more about the five-lined skink case, too.



> snip "I believe many venoms are inert if ingested). " endsnip
> 
> This is not the case particuarly with herp toxins as many of these are extremely stable and are not denatured in the stomach.


I shouldn't have said many, but have heard from toxicology people that some certainly are. Not that they are totally safe, but that they usually won't have anywhere near the same effect if ingested as injected. Clearly those venoms that can denature tissues on contact don't apply.

Once again, though neither is perfect, I think "reptiles - venom, amphibians - poison," and "venom-injected, poison-ingested" are both pretty good rules (as biology rules go). I mean, they are at least as good as "what's a species?" concepts...

Clearly, the system WASN'T intelligently designed...


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

npaull said:


> Once again, though neither is perfect, I think "reptiles - venom, amphibians - poison," and "venom-injected, poison-ingested" are both pretty good rules (as biology rules go). I mean, they are at least as good as "what's a species?" concepts...
> 
> Clearly, the system WASN'T intelligently designed...


LOL! 

I concur with both your points. And it wouldn't be biology if it weren't a little "messy."


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> Clearly, the system WASN'T intelligently designed...


Amen! :wink:


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Terrapene not terrapin.. Two very different animals 

See the following site as well as the citations listed 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... olina.html

It has been recorded since colonial times and is a seasonal thing (as the mushrooms are seasonal available) however the toxicity is a real thing. As with dendrobatid frogs, the diet causes whether the turtle is toxic or not... As I understand it, it is pretty much only found in T. c. carolina. 


Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Terrapene not terrapin.. Two very different animals
> 
> See the following site as well as the citations listed
> 
> ...


Sorry Ed, misread the name. Very cool! Thanks for the info, I'd never seen that before.


----------

