# California ban on Non Native Frogs and turtles/tortoises



## Protean

howdy folks,

I'm posting from my email because this will affect a large portion of us. I am on the UASRK email listing against S373 (a ban on large boids and possibly large monitors), our fearless leader Cliff has brought this to our attention in the last few days. I have copied and pasted the email as I have received it with links to CA Fish/Game page where the information is listed. 

Please read it. This affects all of us. If one state passes it, then more can and will follow.

-jason.p
Protean Terrarium Design



In an action that hits much closer to home, we have learned that the California Fish and Game Commission is considering major changes to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. For the record, that title governs New Restricted Species Permits and Requirements.

Affected sections include: 
A.671, which contains the list of restricted species that are unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, dispose or use except as authorized in a permit.
B. 671.1, which establishes the categories of permits that allow a person to use animals restricted by 671.
C. 671.7, which states the Department may issue permits for animals listed in Section 671.
They are also creating a new Section, 703, which will contain the restricted species permit fees and form numbers.

While the proposal talks mostly about barramundi and four options to allow/limit their sale, it also:
A. Affects herps, expanding current regulations to ban all Gila monsters, and -- as of the last public hearing -- proposing that all non-native turtles and frogs be banned
B. Drastically raises fees, doublingapplication fees and adding newinspection fees
C. Allows the department to adjust fees and rules more loosely going forward, and
D. Gives the department broad new powers for enforcement. For this last, following are a few of the items they are trying to sneak into law:

Subsection 671.1(a)(2) will be modified to allow that the department may enter all holding facilities, vehicles, vessels or other places where restricted species are kept or may be keptand these inspections may be made at any time with or without prior notification.

Subsection 671.1(a)(10) will be added to allow the Department to confer withother state and federal agencies or any other person or entityin order to verify information on the application or to determine if the importation, transportation, or possession of any animal requested will be in the best interest of the state and animal.

Subsection 671.1(b) will be modified to state the fees will be adjusted annuallyand moved to the new Section 703 and that the department may make amendments to existing permits under certain conditions.

Subsection 671.1(c)(2)(J)(4) will be added to require the permit holder to immediately report the escape or release of the wild animalto the Department and the nearest law enforcement
agency.

Finally, the state has pre-determined that these changes will have “no” financial impact “because this regulation does not affect any local entity or program.”

The HSUS is a major player behind the scenes in pushing these new rules.

The full story can be found here: <http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2010/proposedregs10.asp#671>. Note that the proposed changes are on the lower left link, and the redlined ruleson the lower right.

As noted in the fine print, the next public hearing on this topic will be on March 3, 2009. We are currently formulating an action plan, but in the meantime please review the proposed rules and be ready to comment. This will be another major battle alongside S-373.

Thank you as always for reading,

--Cliff
[email protected]


----------



## BOOSHIFIED

no bueno


def keep us posted if anything else happens


----------



## JJhuang

Thats a no no. not after I just started getting into this hobby.


----------



## winyfrog

"As noted in the fine print, the next public hearing on this topic will be on March 3, 2009. We are currently formulating an action plan, but in the meantime please review the proposed rules and be ready to comment. This will be another major battle alongside S-373"



Is this from last year or does it mean March 3, 2010?


----------



## johnc

Cliff, I hope you don't mind (let me know if you do) but I've copied your post and linked to it here: California ban on Non Native Frogs and Turtles/Tortoises - Caudata.org Newt and Salamander Forum


----------



## johnc

Sorry for calling you Cliff, Jason. That's what I get for staying up past 3 am.


----------



## Petersi

Good they needed to make a stand. Non Native frogs have basically killed off the red legged frog. Every state without a harsh winter should start doing something like this so invasive species don't spread and take the niche of a native.


----------



## Ed

Petersi said:


> Good they needed to make a stand. Non Native frogs have basically killed off the red legged frog. Every state without a harsh winter should start doing something like this so invasive species don't spread and take the niche of a native.


Given that bullfrogs tolerate harsh winters very well and are a major invasive species within and without the USA... 


Ed


----------



## Boondoggle

Petersi said:


> Good they needed to make a stand. Non Native frogs have basically killed off the red legged frog. Every state without a harsh winter should start doing something like this so invasive species don't spread and take the niche of a native.


So you support a ban on dart frogs in California?


----------



## johnc

Petersi said:


> Good they needed to make a stand. Non Native frogs have basically killed off the red legged frog. Every state without a harsh winter should start doing something like this so invasive species don't spread and take the niche of a native.


That makes sense in principle, Dennis, but that's simply not realistic and invariably these laws come in after they were needed.

California likes to lay down blanket laws regarding animal species, yet doesn't enforce them well or the laws themselves are inherently flawed. For example, all salamanders of the genus _Ambystoma_ are illegal in California because of the threat of interbreeding with the endangered native California Tiger Salamander, _Ambystoma californiense_. Over on Caudata.org we are constantly warning folks that keeping the Axolotl (_Ambystoma mexicanum_) is illegal in California, yet I get regular reports of California pet shops selling them, California people breeding and selling them privately, and then there are "companies" that will ship axolotls from elsewhere in the US into California (which is actually in breach of Federal Law). And by the way, there are "alien" tiger salamander races/species in California already, slowly but surely hybridising with the natives.

It's hard not to be cynical but the fact remains that the invasive species for which they need to legislate are/were already there in numbers before some environmentalist-wannabe politicians decide to ban them. They get their laws, feel good about themselves, fool some Californian voters into feeling good about _themselves_ for electing said politicians, and meanwhile the amphibian species (plural) in question are still under grave threat.


----------



## Protean

Petersi,

I'm glad you like keeping your darts, because those will be affected by this ban. This is will make any species not available to the hobby because they are non native. Its a pretty unpleasant spot for us all to be in. Froggers are my bread and butter for terrariums, not to mention my imports from Madagascar. So for me, I will be very effected by this. 

And this will give other states the idea to ban them as well. Would you want that? 

-jason.p


----------



## srrrio

I just heard word of this ban in Nevada this week, and it has already put much anxiety into frog keepers here. It sounds as if this goes through, and Nevada adopts similar polices I would be committing a federal crime for as little as taking one of my darts to my vet in Arizona, nevermind buying some frogs at Frogday in CA.

Sally


----------



## Reefer420

first they want to shut down all CA coastline kelp to screw us fisherman, now this kind of crap..typical DFG they want to ban everything...all my hobbies are becoming illegal lol.


----------



## frogparty

they want to shut down kelp to preserve fish stocks from extinction, not to screw you out of fishing opportunitie


----------



## evolvstll

Ca won't Open up off off shore drilling even though in our economy current state they would not have had to do the two year tax raise which includes sales tax. My sales tax is 9.75.
We won't go into the environmental laws ca is enacting that is costing millions if jobs


----------



## johnc

My opinion is completely confined to the ill-researched animal banning laws. I believe in many ways California has the right idea, environment-wise and I don't think it's fair to lump this one issue in with a pile of political issues.


----------



## frogparty

my sales tax is 9.9


----------



## evolvstll

It all lumps together here in California, our legislatures think we can save the world on the backs of us tax payers here. 
BTW I also race motocross here at my local tracks still (yes even at my age), and between the state and fed regulations they keep closing and reducing the size of riding areas.In response to environmental and such!!!!!
No matter what you say, it is lumped together and goes hand in hand. How much of my OHV fees go into the general fund.......
BTW I am also a big hunter. How much of my fees go into the general fund........Available tags and areas are also decreasing!!!!!!!!!
I am also a big deep sea fisherman. So how much of my fees go where they are supposed to.........

All of my hobbies are being impacted by so called environmental regulations and I am being hit on many fronts..

All these regulations, laws, and fees come off the back of someone........and they are related


----------



## johnc

I think you need to take your general discontent to the lounge - this has strayed from a specific issue to general politics.


----------



## Petersi

I know the bullfrog is a non native specie that is invading Cal. That is why I said the red legged frog. There are so many invasive species in every state it makes me sick. Rainbow trout, bullfrogs, earthworms, and dont even get me started on plants. They need to restrict species that could expand and take a niche. That would not include dart frog since there is no way they could make it in the States. Im not counting Hawaii. Sorry if that kills your job but that's life. If darts become illegal in Mi then I will deal with it and switch hobbies.


----------



## jon

johnc said:


> California pet shops selling them, California people breeding and selling them privately, and then there are "companies" that will ship axolotls from elsewhere in the US into California *(which is actually in breach of Federal Law)*. And by the way, there are "alien" tiger salamander races/species in California already, slowly but surely hybridising with the natives.


Isn't it just a state law that bans possession? How is it a violation of federal law? Not trying to hijack or nitpick, I'm just curious.


----------



## Woodsman

Sometimes there is an "all or nothing" mindset that is at work in the hobby communities. Some want to have their frogs, no matter what the consequences are to the natural world, even to the potential extinction of the frogs that are the focus of the hobby. Invasive species exist and do cause harm and over-collection of frogs from the wild IS having deleterious consequences to wild populations.

Given this is a forum for dart frogs, I would recommend that the "action pan" consider the specific issues involving dendrobatid frogs. It would probably be useful to ask the regulators to consider whether these frogs are likely to pose any specific threat as invasive species in the state of California (given the cool northen Winters and the hot Mediterranean Summers, it seems that most of our frogs pose an unlikely threat to the local ecology).

Sometimes, looking at the science behind the proposals and making reasonable exemption requests be placed in the law, could seem like the path that would produce the best results. State museums could also help provide documentation and support on the subject.

Just a thought. Richard.


----------



## johnc

jon said:


> Isn't it just a state law that bans possession? How is it a violation of federal law? Not trying to hijack or nitpick, I'm just curious.


This is a quote from a member of the Enforcement Divison of CA Fish and Game to me in a personal communication regarding axolotls: "Shipping live Ambystoma spp. into CA from another State not only violates CA F&G Commission regulations (Title 14 section 671) but U.S. Laws as well. "


----------



## Ed

johnc said:


> This is a quote from a member of the Enforcement Divison of CA Fish and Game to me in a personal communication regarding axolotls: "Shipping live Ambystoma spp. into CA from another State not only violates CA F&G Commission regulations (Title 14 section 671) but U.S. Laws as well. "


Illegal interstate transport particularly when it is linked to a commercial activity... Lacy Act violation. 

Ed


----------



## jon

Huh. I had no idea it was against federal law to break state law when it comes to plant and animal tansport, but the revised Lacey Act specifically addresses that. Thanks Ed & John. Learn something new every day, I guess.


----------



## winyfrog

Things need to be controlled so that invasive species can not take over certain areas, example the mussles on boats getting released into lake powel, the clean up for this would cost us millions of dollars.

Its unfortunate that pet owners have to be irrisponsible and let their pets go, or dump fish or corals into the ocean. Those irrisponsible people hurt others around them, the jobs that will be affected by this will be huge.


----------



## Protean

update: taken from an email i got today from Cliff. 

California
PIJAC, another organization gearing up to fight the California proposed rules, has suggested we start a letter writing campaign directed at the individual members of the DFG Commission.

Those members are as follows:
--President Jim Kellogg
--Richard B. Rogers
--Michael Sutton
--Daniel W. Richards
--Donald Benninghoven

They can be reached at:
CaliforniaFish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

In addition, our side needs to start gathering scientific data on the frog species we collectively know about. For example, minimum/maximum temperatures tolerated by a species or any other environmental data that will support the fact they are not invasive. If our side can gather any data at all, we will be far ahead of the DFG, who are legislating based on a complete lack of supporting science. (Those who are members of forums, please post a call for support there as well.)


----------



## BOOSHIFIED

I think some PDFs would be able to survive the temperatures in SoCal but the humidity is a whole nother story


----------



## Boondoggle

Protean said:


> update: taken from an email i got today from Cliff.
> 
> California
> PIJAC, another organization gearing up to fight the California proposed rules, has suggested we start a letter writing campaign directed at the individual members of the DFG Commission.
> 
> Those members are as follows:
> --President Jim Kellogg
> --Richard B. Rogers
> --Michael Sutton
> --Daniel W. Richards
> --Donald Benninghoven
> 
> They can be reached at:
> CaliforniaFish and Game Commission
> 1416 Ninth Street
> P.O. Box944209
> Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
> 
> In addition, our side needs to start gathering scientific data on the frog species we collectively know about. For example, minimum/maximum temperatures tolerated by a species or any other environmental data that will support the fact they are not invasive. If our side can gather any data at all, we will be far ahead of the DFG, who are legislating based on a complete lack of supporting science. (Those who are members of forums, please post a call for support there as well.)


Any ideas/suggestions on what kinds of things we should mention in the letters, and what things are better avoided? Is there a rough template for this sort of thing?


----------



## Dendrobait

This is closing the gate after all the cows have gotten out. This ban will do nothing to help our native species...but everything to help HSUS get closer to banning all our pets. 

Relatively few invasive species come from the pet trade. In fact, many of them are the result of government stocking programs(but no one is going to complain about largemouth bass and catfish). 

I would support a blacklist, however. CA currently bans large bufo toads(most tropical ones probably not a risk in truth), and Ambystoma(stops bait trade but also axolotls...blanket ban to make it easier to enforce). I would support the outlawing of the sale of bullfrog tadpoles which many people buy to put into garden ponds. Red-ear sliders too, this is one species that has been introduced to CA mainly through irresponsible owners. 

People in CA need to stand up for their right to engage in a hobby that does not cause any problems. the majority of anuran species popular in the hobby can not survive even the mild climate in Southern California. Most need more humidity, and can't tolerate temps near freezing. Their is more to invasive success than lethal temperatures.


----------



## Petersi

The cows might have gotten out but there are still sheep, horses, and pigs behind the gates. I was just complaining about Rainbow trout. No one really complains about Large mouth bass because they don't eliminate any native species at least not in Michigan that I can think of. I have heard tons of ppl bitch about catfish, mainly bullheads.

Now I'm with you on the fact most anuran species could never be invasive to Ca ok.

This law was something they should have done years ago. If ecology was understood 100 years ago before there was a problem this would have been in place already. Just because some damage is done doesn't mean they shouldn't start taking steps to fix it. They are trying to protect native fish and wildlife from going extinct.


----------



## Boondoggle

Yep, those pet trout owners were pretty irresponsible.


----------



## Dendrobait

Yeah, those lousy pet owners wanted to get rid of their pet trout so badly they started bombing mountain lakes with them...(and causing populations of native mountain frogs to be extirpated in the process). Again, a lot of serious invasives were released by well intentioned government programs. I can only think of a few cases of releases from pet owners(a few more if you count farms/zoos etc.)

LMB, were they not game fish, would probably be viewed pretty seriously in CA. They(and other stocked gamefish), were a major factor in pushing out California's only native centrarchid.(Sacramento perch, now much less common than in the past)...as well as our native amphibians not adapted to such predation.

Again, pet frog owners are not the problem here. This law will affect them for no good reason. If you want to do something...ban sale/transportation of bullfrogs(develop a management program), restrict sales of RES and develop removal/culling programs for infested areas. Thats about it. An outright ban on a majority of species that have caused no problems whatsoever is uneccessary.


----------



## NathanB

so your saying that pet owners never release their animals into the wild? 
or that since only a small percent do it so its ok, and they should be left alone?


----------



## Dendrobait

bussardr: i have no idea where you got that from, read my above post for my stance. Hobbyists are hardly a blip on the radar as far as our declining native amphibs are concerned. Releasing of pet frogs is not a common occurence due to laws in place and their nature(some pet turtles not so much) but education is what is required here, not blanket bans. I have no problem with banning something if it can be shown to potentially cause problems(can't think of too many frogs that would). Again, if they are seriously concerned with helping our native amphibians their are bigger problems that need to be addressed.


----------



## Boondoggle

bussardnr said:


> so your saying that pet owners never release their animals into the wild?
> or that since only a small percent do it so its ok, and they should be left alone?


Nope, I'm saying that I think that it is ridiculous to ban all non-native amphibians when very few pets are introduced into the wild here, and fewer survive. I can understand (and support) bans on animals that can winter here and displace native species. African Clawed Frogs have no place in California, but what does that have to do with my dart frogs that can't survive outside their tanks for 12 hours? What do they have in common other than they are both tadpoles at one time? Yet, this proposed ban treats them as equal threats. From an ecological standpoint, ACF's have more in common with feral cats than darts. Bureaucracy can be a slow moving hulk of inertia, but that doesn't mean all laws have to be based in ignorance.

Most exotic reptiles/amphibians cannot survive long enough to get a foothold in California. I comprehend that, you comprehend that...we don't have PhD's...are we meant to understand that lawmakers can't grasp that fact? If so, then why the "all or nothing" mentality? Is it because there is an agenda, or just because it is easier? Either scenario is unacceptable. Since when is it OK to suspend peoples inalienable rights because of lazy ignorant lawmaking?

Also, as a side note...how many hobbyists do you know that have purchased a $50-$150 dart frog, and then later release it into the wild?

(That turned into a rant, and for the record, was not aimed at bussrdnr)


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics

This is just typical California, swatting houseflies with a Bazooka.


----------



## Dendrobait

You say it!


----------



## Petersi

I never said that they need to ban the frog trade. I said that banning non native species that could have even a chance of making it in the wild was a good start. Dart frogs would not survive a frost and every state freezes at least one is awhile. I know ppl don't keep rainbow trouts as pets either. I was talking about the Governments moving them to try to boost fishing. Great way to pick apart my argument. I name the most invasive species in the world. I would go as far as saying that wood crates should never be shipped past a state line. I love that people on here get so flustered over someone not sharing the same view point. Are you for the extinction of your native frogs and fish? Don't you want to protect them?


----------



## Ed

Petersi said:


> I never said that they need to ban the frog trade. I said that banning non native species that could have even a chance of making it in the wild was a good start. Dart frogs would not survive a frost and every state freezes at least one is awhile. I know ppl don't keep rainbow trouts as pets either. I was talking about the Governments moving them to try to boost fishing. Great way to pick apart my argument. I name the most invasive species in the world. I would go as far as saying that wood crates should never be shipped past a state line. I love that people on here get so flustered over someone not sharing the same view point. Are you for the extinction of your native frogs and fish? Don't you want to protect them?


So on what basis do you determine that a animal can or cannot survive if released? On what basis can you make a determination on a species level as there can be significant differences within even a genus? Where would the funding come from to determine which species can/cannot survive? 

Even in California, there are probably microclimates (like close to water courses or in area where lawn watering is frequent) where large numbers of species can survive.. 
The fact that a state does have a freeze does not mean that the freeze will penetrate potential refugia (for example burrows, cracks down along foundations...) and thus will probably have little effect on populations that become established. In addition, all because a region gets colder than we percieve the animals in question does not mean that it will cause them harm. In my experience I had Dendrobates auratus, and D. tinctorius get in the 40s F for two weeks with no harm, and from personal experience I know some E. tricolor/anthyoni will easily survive low 40s for the same period.. 

I am sure that a portion of the reasoning for banning the animals is the result of translocation of pathogens from captive populations and/or bait usages. The pathogens maybe unaffected by the temperatures as they can either establish below the frost lines or use a host species that is under some conditions is resistent (such as Rhabdias, Chytrid, and/or rana viruses).... Attempting to draw lines in the sand based on what may or may not survive (with little or no solid data on this determination) is pointless... 


I'm also willing to bet that there are people who are members of the North American Native Fish Association that do keep rainbow trout as pets.... 

Ed


----------



## thedude

Petersi said:


> I never said that they need to ban the frog trade. I said that banning non native species that could have even a chance of making it in the wild was a good start. Dart frogs would not survive a frost and every state freezes at least one is awhile. I know ppl don't keep rainbow trouts as pets either. I was talking about the Governments moving them to try to boost fishing. Great way to pick apart my argument. I name the most invasive species in the world. I would go as far as saying that wood crates should never be shipped past a state line. I love that people on here get so flustered over someone not sharing the same view point. Are you for the extinction of your native frogs and fish? Don't you want to protect them?


totally agree with you.

any animals that are likely to become invasive in a certain state should not be allowed to be in that state. 

by the way, the reason why bass and some trout are introduced to lakes is it brings in tons of $$$, without it, our wildlife officials wouldnt have 80% of their funding. funding that they use for helping endangered species. of course, i dont agree with how many lakes and rivers they infect with these sport fish, especially since all of washingtons native trout and salmon are endangered!


----------



## Catfur

Ed said:


> I'm also willing to bet that there are people who are members of the North American Native Fish Association that do keep rainbow trout as pets...


I'd bet that number rivals the total number of dart frog keepers, really.


----------



## Dendrobait

Ed: That info on the temperature tolerance of darts is remarkable. Did they feed/remain active at those temps?

Indeed, drawing lines in the sand is quite useless...but I think it is safe to say the majority of species will not survive long term. But animals with a history of being invasive or who may be able to(some funding for graduate student slave  research could probably solve this problem). Their is a lot more to invasive species success than lethal temperatures. We've planted many exotic plants in our yards, but of those thousands the majority never stray beyond those boundaries, or if they do do not last long term. A few, however, become a truly serious problem. I'm willing to bet research into their needs could have picked these out with some leve of crtainty.

Diseases is a whole nother issue and I don't think I am qualified to address that. I will say bait trade is a far bigger source of possible transmission than the pet trade. Thoughts Ed on any of this?

(oh, and on the trout part and NANFA...I certainly don't doubt that...but again these people are not the reason we have a trout problem).

petersi: you bring up a gp on wooden pallets. One thing that I think should stop if it hasn't already is shipment of things from Guam to Hawaii. They have intercepted brown treesnakes from cargo shipped in from Guam. All it would take is one and anyone knowing about the biology of BTS or the ecological disaster on Guam would bet on something similar happening in Hawaii.


----------



## Boondoggle

Ed said:


> So on what basis do you determine that a animal can or cannot survive if released? On what basis can you make a determination on a species level as there can be significant differences within even a genus? Where would the funding come from to determine which species can/cannot survive?


Good questions that I don't have the answers to....but I'm not sure if your just picking apart my post, or if you have answers to these questions, or if you are saying that this ban is a good idea because those questions are hard/impossible to answer, or something else. If you could explain... 



Ed said:


> Even in California, there are probably microclimates (like close to water courses or in area where lawn watering is frequent) where large numbers of species can survive..
> The fact that a state does have a freeze does not mean that the freeze will penetrate potential refugia (for example burrows, cracks down along foundations...) and thus will probably have little effect on populations that become established. In addition, all because a region gets colder than we percieve the animals in question does not mean that it will cause them harm. In my experience I had Dendrobates auratus, and D. tinctorius get in the 40s F for two weeks with no harm, and from personal experience I know some E. tricolor/anthyoni will easily survive low 40s for the same period...


I hear what your saying, and I have to admit the numbers could add up, but I lived 25 years in San Diego (arguably the likeliest location of a wild California Dendro) and I just don't see it. I don't know everything, and I'm not saying it's 100% impossible...but I just can't buy a dendro lasting a year here, let alone thriving, let alone breeding, let alone displacing anything native.



Ed said:


> I am sure that a portion of the reasoning for banning the animals is the result of translocation of pathogens from captive populations and/or bait usages. The pathogens maybe unaffected by the temperatures as they can either establish below the frost lines or use a host species that is under some conditions is resistent (such as Rhabdias, Chytrid, and/or rana viruses...


Now THAT definetly is valid...no arguing there. How far do you follow that line of logic, though. Doesn't it end at "No animals should be kept by anyone in any region they do not occur in naturally"?



Ed said:


> I'm also willing to bet that there are people who are members of the North American Native Fish Association that do keep rainbow trout as pets....


OK, now you ARE just picking at me.


----------



## Boondoggle

Petersi said:


> I never said that they need to ban the frog trade.


Actually your exact words after reading about this movement to ban the frog trade in Cailfornia was "Good they needed to make a stand." and "They should have passed this law years ago" Then when I asked if you supported a ban on dart frogs in Californnia, you did not answer. I don't know what you mean, I just know what you said. I assumed they were the same.



Petersi said:


> I love that people on here get so flustered over someone not sharing the same view point.


You love that? That's...odd.



Petersi said:


> Are you for the extinction of your native frogs and fish? Don't you want to protect them?


I'm absolutely not for the extinction of native fauna, no more than you would be...but to approach the subject as if this ban equals conservation, and people owning non-native frogs equals habitat destruction is over-simplifying the issue. If this ban came to your state, would you welcome it? If so, why are you keeping non native animals now? Isn't supporting a ban on something you enjoy the definition of hypocrisy?


----------



## Woodsman

Making arguments here that suggest that opinion about a subject and facts regarding a subject are equivilent don't make sense and hold almost no water. When a subject comes up and I don't have much personal experience or information about, I do make an effort to learn as much as I can (not just state what I think based on my limitied information). To say that no frogs not native to California could live there supposes a profound knowledge about world anurans and their detailed ecologies (that I believe few trained specialists would even claim for themselves).

This is why I suggested some pages ago that we focus on an effort to determine if dendrobatids (the frogs that are the focus of THIS forum) posed any specific threat to become invasives in California. The fact that D. auratus has become invasive in Hawaii would make dart frogs a likely target for concerned scientists who do not want non-native frogs to become established in their state.

We would need to look at which species of dendrobtid frogs live in more "extreme" habitats (drier, colder) in nature and determine what are the limits to their survival. When I studied the habitats of California Newts in dry ravines east of Berkeley, I was surprised that (although the chapparal-covered hillsides were quite dry), the deep riparian corridors offered significant habitats and refugia for a number of wetland species. So there may be a number of our frogs that could possibly survive in certain habitats within the state.

Ultimately, this is a scientific question and not another "government should just stay out of our business" argument (arguments which seem to run rampant around here). California sits on the edge of a whole world of Asian species of frogs that we all probably know little about. If I were a regulator in the state, I would be rightly worried about the possibilities.

Richard.


----------



## Ed

Dendrobait said:


> Ed: That info on the temperature tolerance of darts is remarkable. Did they feed/remain active at those temps?


The Dendrobates hunkered down in the bottom of the cage and went immobile for the two weeks. The E. tricolor/anthyoni were still active and moving around. 



Dendrobait said:


> We've planted many exotic plants in our yards, but of those thousands the majority never stray beyond those boundaries, or if they do do not last long term. A few, however, become a truly serious problem. I'm willing to bet research into their needs could have picked these out with some leve of crtainty.


Again, a big part of the problem is defining the regions in which they are likely to become invasive and prohibiting them from those regions. If you are in an area that borders prohibition of species A, there really isn't a good way to prohibit it from that region. 

There are a lot more invasive plants than people realize. Often people mistake the invasive for native species.... garlic mustard, field mustard, Norway Maple, Amur Maple.... The maples were not thought to be a problem until long after thier introduction into the USA.... 




Dendrobait said:


> Diseases is a whole nother issue and I don't think I am qualified to address that. I will say bait trade is a far bigger source of possible transmission than the pet trade. Thoughts Ed on any of this?


One of the items people often forget is that the bait trade is also a source of species (assorted tiger salamanders (water dogs) larva to name one) for the pet trade... While the bait trade is responsible for tranferring diseases from one local to another.. the pet trade may be enhancing the transmission of novel diseases from one country to another however some simple precautions can prevent this from happening. Bleaching of waste water before it is disposed of goes a long way towards prevention of introduction of novel pathogens. In addition, material from the enclosures should be discarded into the trash and not used in the yard.. or composted unless the compost is a really hot compost. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Boondoggle said:


> Good questions that I don't have the answers to....but I'm not sure if your just picking apart my post, or if you have answers to these questions, or if you are saying that this ban is a good idea because those questions are hard/impossible to answer, or something else. If you could explain...


If I didn't quote you how could I be picking you apart??? 

A ban that is supported by evidence is one thing, a blanket ban without any supporting evidence is another problem. 




Boondoggle said:


> I hear what your saying, and I have to admit the numbers could add up, but I lived 25 years in San Diego (arguably the likeliest location of a wild California Dendro) and I just don't see it. I don't know everything, and I'm not saying it's 100% impossible...but I just can't buy a dendro lasting a year here, let alone thriving, let alone breeding, let alone displacing anything native.


The assumption should not (in reality cannot) be made without supporting evidence as we do not know the phenotypic response to enviromental stressors that is possible. In a number of invasive species, introductions occured multiple times before a species was able to establish and spread. 




Boondoggle said:


> Now THAT definetly is valid...no arguing there. How far do you follow that line of logic, though. Doesn't it end at "No animals should be kept by anyone in any region they do not occur in naturally"?


This can be addressed through some simple precautions which I know I have mentioned on this board several times... 

Ed


----------



## Boondoggle

Ed said:


> If I didn't quote you how could I be picking you apart???


OK...that was just a question. I also asked if you have answers to these questions, or if you are saying that this ban is a good idea because those questions are hard/impossible to answer, or something else. If you could explain your opinion of this ban. I wasn't being snarky. Those were all sincere questions. Do you also feel as if this ban is long overdue.



Ed said:


> The assumption should not (in reality cannot) be made without supporting evidence as we do not know the phenotypic response to enviromental stressors that is possible. In a number of invasive species, introductions occured multiple times before a species was able to establish and spread.


Probably true. I'm not sure how I could have been clearer that I was not putting forth scientific evidence, but stating my beliefs based on personal anecdotal experience.



Ed said:


> This can be addressed through some simple precautions which I know I have mentioned on this board several times...


This on a point I was agreeing with you on? Ed, honestly, either I am misreading your tone or you are misreading mine. I am aware of precautions myself, and incorporate new ones as I learn them. Unfortunately this proposed law is not one that requires pet owner to use responsible precautions, it's a law that would disallow ownership of any non native herps. As far as your previous "mentions" I value your point of view but, believe it or not Ed, have not read all your posts.

Incidentally Woodsman, I'm not ignoring what you said, just thinking about it.


----------



## Ed

Boondoggle said:


> OK...that was just a question. I also asked if you have answers to these questions, or if you are saying that this ban is a good idea because those questions are hard/impossible to answer, or something else. If you could explain your opinion of this ban. I wasn't being snarky. Those were all sincere questions. Do you also feel as if this ban is long overdue.


Personally I'm not for it. On a professional level I understand it as it is easier (and more efficient to police) to ban everything than to make exceptions for certain animals regardless of the lack of risk.




Boondoggle said:


> This on a point I was agreeing with you on? Ed, honestly, either I am misreading your tone or you are misreading mine. I am aware of precautions myself, and incorporate new ones as I learn them. Unfortunately this proposed law is not one that requires pet owner to use responsible precautions, it's a law that would disallow ownership of any non native herps. As far as your previous "mentions" I value your point of view but, believe it or not Ed, have not read all your posts.


I had just rewritten the basics in my response to Dendrobait and was being lazy as it was in the post right before my response to you.. 

Ed


----------



## tikifrog

Greetings all,

I admit that I have not read this entire thread, but where do we need to go with this to keep our frogs?

Thanks,

John


----------



## Boondoggle

Ed said:


> I had just rewritten the basics in my response to Dendrobait and was being lazy as it was in the post right before my response to you..
> 
> Ed


Now I get it. That makes sense.


----------



## MELLOWROO421

For those of you have been following this, they had a hearing on this on the 3rd. Here is the link. Click the March 3rd complete video and fast forward to about 3:48 on the video. 
CAL-SPAN:California State Meetings Webcast Video 

Basically, they have now said that the original proposed plan to ban ALL non native frogs and turtles now is only going to be in effect for the food industry and will have zero effect on the hobby or the pet trade HOWEVER.... they did publicly announce and threaten that if they are continuously found in the food market that they will automatically assume that they are getting them from the pet industry and therefor go forward with their original proposal to ban them ALL, period. It is a long, frustrating video to watch, but from the sounds of it we are in the clear for now.


----------



## Catfur

MELLOWROO421 said:


> Basically, they have now said that the original proposed plan to ban ALL non native frogs and turtles now is only going to be in effect for the food industry and will have zero effect on the hobby or the pet trade HOWEVER.... they did publicly announce and threaten that if they are continuously found in the food market that they will automatically assume that they are getting them from the pet industry and therefor go forward with their original proposal to ban them ALL, period. It is a long, frustrating video to watch, but from the sounds of it we are in the clear for now.


AHAHAHAHAHA!

They tell you that now to make you shut up and go away. 30 seconds after the legislation is passed (or regs approved), PETA & Co. will "find" all sorts of non-native turtles and frogs, even if they have to have some patsies take the fall, and the ban will be retroactively modified to include all frogs and turtles. Anyone who buys that load of crap deserves exactly what they get.


----------



## MELLOWROO421

Actually, just by watching the video you can see that it was an appeasement effort and unfortunately I agree that eventually they will find a way to include the pet hobby. There were 24 people who showed up to speak because during the previous meeting they had all listed, not just the food trade. This was not made clear that it was just one of the options on the table and had been changed until this most recent meeting took place.
As far as the whole if you buy this crap you get what you deserve, I'm not sure I follow. Lots of us not only are watching it closely but sign the petitions and really have very little say so. I don't think anybody in the hobby here in CA is happy either way. Sure we'd like to see the illegal and endangered species taken out of the food industry and obviously none of us want to see released pets wreak havoc on our local environment but many have and continue to propose new and better ways to go about that without this law. If it gets passed under my nose or against my approval based on richer, louder organizations I would venture to say nobody would deserve it. It's not the frog keepers buying this crap, it's the PETA, ASPC and Humane Society speaking out in support of it. USARK, amongst others were there speaking out against it but since it has nothing to do with the pet trade at this time they basically asked anybody from the pet industry to go home since they should no longer be concerned.


----------



## Woodsman

Rather than just wait for the other shoe to drop, I would recommend that concerned hobbyists reach out to their state legislators and try to codify the current regulations into state law. This is democracy, standing up for your beliefs and making a space for the things you believe in.

Now, if they were saying they were taking all the guns away from the populace, I would think that there would be more than a little "heming an hawing" about those few groups that stand up for animal rights. So, is this something we really feel strongly about or not?

Take care, Richard.


----------



## Catfur

MELLOWROO421 said:


> As far as the whole if you buy this crap you get what you deserve, I'm not sure I follow.


I mean if you buy that transparent lie about "this is only directed at the food industry" and go away, and stop making noise (which is what a baldfaced lie like that is meant to do), you deserve the ban you will be saddled with.


----------

