# D. Castaneoticus Legal Status



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

A friend of mine approached a vendor at IAD and inquired as to the legality of the Brazil Nut frogs on their table, the vendor claimed US Fish & Wildlife had been to their house and their frogs were proclaimed legal.....this claim is absolutely absurd. With the help of my friend I have been to obtain written status as to legality of D Castaneoticus for those that have any interest.
In a letter wrtten by US Fish & Wildlife:
"It has come to our attention that the Brazil-nut poisen arrow frog is protected under Brazilain Laws as an endemic endangered species. Additionally, after further investigation and consultation with the CITES Management Authority of Brazil, this species was originally exported from Brazil under a CITES permit that retricted its US import to scientific purposes only. The import was also conditioned by stating that the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, as the original US importer, could only transfer the imported frogs or any progeny thereof with the prior approval of Brazil. The CITES Management Authority of Brazil has indicated that they were never consulted prior to the transfers of specimens of this species by the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History to other institutions and individuals. Consequently, subsequent transfers leading to possession are contrary to the import conditions and therefore, we can no longer find legal acquisition in accordance with 50 CFR 23.15(d)(2)."
Hence all specimens of D Castaneoticus including those in institutions other than the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History are illegal animals and subject to confiscation.
I understand the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is trying to get all of the Brazil Nuts back, my guess is they got in big trouble for violating their permit. I doubt Fish & Wildlife would ever come knocking on people's doors but it certainly would be prudent to not shoot off flairs.
Mark


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Good info, though I really think its time to get these people to start changing the laws on this stuff. 

Why can't the hobbiest and the Zoos work together. If they are captive breed why does it matter? I'll tell you it doesn't, other than someone or a group of people on a big power trip.

Now if the case of wild caught animals I see the point, but with offspring I see no issues at all.


----------



## Randy (Mar 18, 2004)

Yes, very good info. Casti's seem to be going the same route that Azureus took. Who knows how many there are dispersed throughout the hobby now? :wink:


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Casti's*

I think they will remain in the hobby like Azureus, as long as people don't tweak. Unfortunately these are a little bit like Mysteriousis only because of the circumstances of their background. I am assuming Oklahoma took a real black eye over this situation. For practical purposes F&W could never get back all of the animals, who knows maybe they will come to the hobbyists someday to get animals to repopulate the fowest....run fowest run!!!


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2005)

Thanks for the info Mark.
Mark


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

Don't fool yourself into thinking Fish and Wildlife is not paying attention to us. When they did the raids awhile back at the reptile show in Ohio they had been working on it for years. They had undercover agents buying and selling things and infiltrating the illegal side of the hobby. It was carried out like a drug raid with armed officers and everything. A number of people were arrested at different locations in short order. 
Reading between the lines I almost here people advocating buying and selling illegal animals. If you play with fire you are going to get burnt.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

First I want to say that I do not agree with selling illegal animals, but I do disagree with what is considered illegal. If they came into the country legaly to a zoo or a hobbiest then they should be legal on both sides. As long as the animals are captive born what is the harm?



Michael Shrom said:


> Don't fool yourself into thinking Fish and Wildlife is not paying attention to us. When they did the raids awhile back at the reptile show in Ohio they had been working on it for years. They had undercover agents buying and selling things and infiltrating the illegal side of the hobby. It was carried out like a drug raid with armed officers and everything. A number of people were arrested at different locations in short order.
> Reading between the lines I almost here people advocating buying and selling illegal animals. If you play with fire you are going to get burnt.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2005)

I agree with Kyle. I am sure if you dig deep enough there are quite a few species that aren't "legal" in the trade now but are consider so, am I right?
Mark


----------



## mikejorg (Jul 9, 2004)

*Brasil*

Mark,

Is it true that folks at the Natural History museum in Oklahoma distributed live offspring to other froggers? Please email me privately if you have the chance. Thanks.

Mike
[email protected]


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

I think Oklahoma gave them to other institutions, which they were not supposed to do, then these other institutions got offspring into the hands of hobbyists. Mark will correct me if I'm wrong on this.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

So does anyone know how it is in EU? I hear that they zoos and the hobbyist work together sharing animals and practices. 

As I understand it, it is only to work one way here (US).... hobbyist>zoo and not back.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Casti's*

Robb is correct, they went to other institutions then to hobbyists.
mark


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

*Not quite endemic.*

Just to add to the complications regarding D.castaneoticus, it is not a Brazilian endemic. It has been found in neighboring regions of Peru (Departmento Madre de Dios) as well.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

I suppose the Brazilian government can be displeased at the violation of the original agreement by the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and secretly delighted that the original 30 frogs have become hundreds if not thousands. 

Not what they had in mind when they first sent them but perhaps a better end than 30 frogs going to an institution and potentially slowly dying out. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the ends justifies the means but at this point in time, there is a certain reality that has been created.

Use this case to educate governments, institutions and hobbyists about potential issues in these sorts of situations. Perhaps use it as an example of the value the hobby can bring to preservation of endangered species.

Bill


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Exactly... I would argue that in many cases the animals are in better care with the hobbiest than the zoos. Thats not to put the Zoos down, but they have a bit more to care for.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Kyle (and others),

We can wish for other conditions all we would like - we are talking about the present though.

I agree with the original premise. Own them if you're up to it - tout them at your own peril though.

They may someday be considered like Azureus - they've yet to reach that point though.

s


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The original importation into Oklahoma were to study the reproduction in that species. The cb offspring were loaned out to another institution in violation of the importation agreement with Brazil from which they were dispersed ( reported as stolen to Oklahoma who would have had to report that back to the Brazilian authorities) to the private hobby again in violation of the loan agreement. If I remember correctly the loan agreement specified that all offspring remain the property of the Brazilian goverment regardless of who has them..... I believe that would make all interstate commercial transactions in this species a Lacy act violation. 
As I understand it one of the big differences between this species and azureus, there have been legal transfers of azureus from some Zoos to the private sector unlike castinoticus where all individuals are owned by the Brazilian goverment who prohibits the transfer. 
It is difficult to get transfers from Zoos to the private sector due to the many regs put on it by AZA due in part to the bad publicity spins by the Animal Rights movements (Zoos breeding animals for the pet trade). 

Many of the species that at one time may have been illegal but are no longer illegal were legitimized by the importation of a legal shipment of that species. Often from cb offspring from Europe that were descended from confiscated animals (ex many Australian animals).

Some comments. 

Ed


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

*Casti's*

Good point on the Azureus Ed, they were legally transferred which would end any type of parallel in this case. It is truely unfortunate that the legal bodies responsible will not be able to acknowledge the success we hobbyists have had turning a handful of cb offspring into literally hundreds of progeny. This act has completely negated the potential for smugglers to go to Brazil and "cash out" on 50 or 60 animals that people would be desperate for because they were an unavailable thumbnail. My guess would be that the animals in Europe now are an example of the aforementioned act.
My post was not meant to ruin anyone's financial gain in selling offspring of this species but one of education. There were many misconceptions about this species in the hobby, and after what I had heard the vendor at IAD say it was time to find out the facts. Good or bad, they are what they are and based on the background circumstances do not look to see the status of this species changed no matter how good the reasoning would be to do so.
Mark


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Oh ya great topics really. Just would like to see what could be done to change how we work with the Zoos in this country. I think in the end the animals benefit when we are not taking them from the wild. I'm sure in my life time some of the frogs we keep will only be in hobbiest and Zoos hands.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

There are a number of issues that need to be dealt with before Zoos in the USA will work with the general public

1) the publicity angle about supplying the pet trade. Most Zoos are funded in the large part via gate admissions and anything that affects gate admissions can really impact the Zoos in a negative manner. A positive campaign needs to counteract that sort of publicity. 

2) the actions of a few people have created a negative stereotype making Zoos leery about dealing with the private sector. (To the point that AZA is now enacting and enforcing new policies that will prevent the aquisition of animals from people that have not dealt with Zoos in the past.) Specific examples of this are the controversy about D. castenoticus, Dyscophus antongilli (which were put on loan for breeding, researcher bred them, reported adults had died and sold both adults and offspring into the pet trade) as well as other examples. If the hobbyists who want to deal with the Zoos fail to police themselves to some extent and avoid these sort of issues, the Zoos willnot deal with them (because aquisition of illegal animals can cause the loss of accredidation, as well as the negative publicity issues). 

3) turnover in hobby. Even though this occurs to some extent in Zoos, collections in Zoos tend to be stable for years (or even decades in some Zoos). However its hard to get a program together when the people involved may not be around in a year and their frogs may be dispersed into multiple collections with no regard to genetic value. 

4) tracking and managing populations to maximize genetic diversity and maintain the correct behaviors. This means that people need to try and prevent the loss of bloodlines through the up and down cycles of interest in species (usually linked to a loss in value of some species or morphs). 
There is a breeder registry in the works that will help in this respect but people will need to participate to make it work. 

Atlanta Botanical Gardens spoke a little at IAD about the problems with trying to maintain species in captivity through a joint partnership with the private sector but most of the species that will need to be worked with are small nondescript brown or tan species. 

Ed


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2005)

Ed makes a great point about the fact that the majority of the frogs that need help right now are indeed little brown frogs. The vast majority of the family Dendrobatidae is not the same as a D. azureus in a tank. If you also look at behavioral, population, etc studies, the majority are with pretty species (I am just as guilty as anyone of this). Right now we have in the lab here studies with different behavioral components of Colostethus, including C. vertebralis and a few others which are unknown. Dr. Coloma had a great talk the other day on the evolution of amplexus in amphibians, and if you look at what we know about certain groups, it is very little. 
j


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Great info from everyone. So is there anything that can be done to make it better? How would one go about working with a Zoo or Zoos?


----------



## Arklier (Mar 1, 2004)

It's that way across all fields of zoology. The sad fact is that people pay the most attention to animals that they find appealing. If people are doling out donation dollars, which is going to get more money, the campaign to save a slimy invertibrate or a cute cuddly mammal?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Arklier said:


> It's that way across all fields of zoology. The sad fact is that people pay the most attention to animals that they find appealing. If people are doling out donation dollars, which is going to get more money, the campaign to save a slimy invertibrate or a cute cuddly mammal?


This is absolutely true to the point that several conservation groups and foundations actually prioritize species. The ranking usually is similar to this: fur > feathers > fins > folks. Not only does this produce a prioritization scheme out of synch with conservation needs (but based on the reality of what people will donate $ for), it also ignores ecological processes which are the real root of environmental problems and the solution. For example, simple restoring natural fire regimes to many ecosystems would do far more to conserve wildlife than purchasing dozens of preserves.

But lets consider the LBF (Little Brown Frog) syndrome a little further. How many of us are willing to devote viv space and resources to LBF instead of charasmatic and brightly colored PDF? I'll have to be honest that if the majority of my vivs were not occupied by diurnal, easily observed, beautiful frogs, I'm not sure how long I could maintain interest in the hobby.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

> The ranking usually is similar to this: fur > feathers > fins > folks.


OMG! This is a truism! It seems to me, and I may be wrong (Apparently I can't spell Ecuador) that reptile houses in zoos are a luxury. If your zoo has a reptile house then it is doing okay. When people flock to a zoo to see the baby gorilla, where would any zoo spend their time and efforts? Making more baby gorillas. A baby D. auratus, although one of my all time favorites, fail to draw the same numbers as a baby sea otter. Ergo, vis-a-vi, concordantly, fur>feathers>fins>folks>flies if I may be so bold as to add that to Brents topic.
Dave


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

After reading this thread again let me throw out something else for discussion. When this topic comes up the question of why the zoos and hobbies can't work together often comes up. I would argue that zoos are actually a very insignificant player in this whole deal. True, if we want to get involved in captive breeding programs, then zoos are the key authority. But I think we are mixing up issues here. Captive breeding in unbelievably rare cases can be used to propogate imperiled species for later reintroduction to the wild. However, what we are talking about here is illegal and legal trade in animals. Every conservation organization in the world is aware of the problems associated with the illegal pet trade. But how many of these organizations have seriously considered the potential of using the legal commerce and propogation of these animals as a tool to curb the illegal market? A few but the concept is still in its infancy. I would argue that the most effective and likely to succeed course would be for the hobby to partner with conservation organizations to develop a legal collection, export/import, and propogation scheme designed to knock the market out from under the demand for smuggled frogs. The first step is that we need to realize that smuggling is a different issue than participating in captive breeding programs. Most of the frogs threatened by illegal collection do not warrant a captive breeding program to prevent their extinction. What they need is protection from the damn smugglers who used scorched earth practices to get their frogs. To give those frogs protection from the smugglers, a different kind of captive breeding could be used to multiply the animals to supply market demand without depleting wild populations. These two kinds of captive breeding programs are apples and oranges and require very different techniques to succeed. Captive breeding for reintroduction is highly technical and requires careful management of genetics. Captive breeding to starve the smugglers market would be much easier. All you have to do is produce enough frogs to meet market demands at least to the point where the market will no longer accept the risk of dealing with smuggled animals.

But despite the potential for these programs, there is one thing the hobby should stop doing immediately in my opinion. We should stop whining about illegal species X or Y not being made legal just because there are already a bunch of them in captivity. For one thing it makes the hobby sound selfish. There are so many legal species in the hobby that no private (or public) collection can contain them all so it is hard to understand that there is a "need" for these illegal animals to be legitimized. Secondly, we need to understand that there may be reasons the frogs are illegal other than to protect the species in the wild. For example many countries have gotten screwed when U.S. or European bioprospectors make billions of $ off of biota taken from another country. Ecuador got squat when the painkiller was synthesized based on compounds found in the skin of Ecuadorian frogs. While we may not care about such things, you can bet that Ecuador does and by the same token Brazil may be worried about the same thing. By retaining ownership of the frogs they can safeguard any monetary value that may be discovered from the frogs in the future. So instead of just complaining about frogs being illegal, maybe we should try to come up with some interesting solutions that would also benefit the countries that supply the frogs. I'm sure it is not a new idea to send a portion of proceeds to a conservation trust in the country of origin. Such a move would provide good PR and also some money to fund conservation for the frogs where they belong - in the wild. All I'm suggesting is that we do a little less complaining and start thinking very creatively about different ways our hobby might be used to benefit wild frog conservation. There is nothing wrong with having selfish motives for such ideas. If we want new frogs in the hobby, fine. But lets do it so that the we win, the frogs in the wild win, and the countries that manage those wild frogs also win. Nobody is going to argue that frogs can't be sustainably harvested from the wild and nobody is going to argue that captive breeding of frogs can't help conserve wild frogs. So lets figure out how to make it work.


----------



## OneSmallFrog (Apr 27, 2005)

bbrock said:


> ... So instead of just complaining about frogs being illegal, maybe we should try to come up with some interesting solutions that would also benefit the countries that supply the frogs. ... But lets do it so that the we win, the frogs in the wild win, and the countries that manage those wild frogs also win. ...


 And the rest of that post


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Nicely said Brent.

Where the hell you been?

s


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "But how many of these organizations have seriously considered the potential of using the legal commerce and propogation of these animals as a tool to curb the illegal market? A few but the concept is still in its infancy." 

One of the unofficial reasons that I have heard thrown around for years (literally) is that the initial legalization just allows the smugglers to cash in with the first high dollar imports as well as rewarding the people who already possess smuggled frogs). (I have heard this from Zoo bigwigs as well as some USF&W officials). There is a lot of concern about being able to seperate out the legal from the illegal animals. Larger animals could be microchipped but how do tell legal from illegal frogs. 

(I am not espousing this point of view but I want people to know that this is something that is floating in the back of the heads of people who could put roadblocks in this path). 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> snip "But how many of these organizations have seriously considered the potential of using the legal commerce and propogation of these animals as a tool to curb the illegal market? A few but the concept is still in its infancy."
> 
> One of the unofficial reasons that I have heard thrown around for years (literally) is that the initial legalization just allows the smugglers to cash in with the first high dollar imports as well as rewarding the people who already possess smuggled frogs). (I have heard this from Zoo bigwigs as well as some USF&W officials). There is a lot of concern about being able to seperate out the legal from the illegal animals. Larger animals could be microchipped but how do tell legal from illegal frogs.
> 
> ...


And there is some legitimacy in the argument. If just a few legal imports trickle in then it could actually make the smuggling problem worse for the very reason that you describe - that it is no longer possible to separate legal from illegal frogs. The trick would be a system that could collect a few frogs in the wild and amplify the numbers before releasing them legally to the general public so that the illegal market is snuffed out immediately. The other problem is getting people to leave their personal beliefs behind and simply think pragmatically about the best solutions to curb smuggling. It is true that most of these schemes would result in currently illegal animals in the hobby becoming "laundered". The question is which is the higher priority, punishing the bad guys or protecting frogs in the wild? In my opinion the priority is with protecting wild frogs and if the methods to do that mean some bad people go unpunished, so be it. But this is a huge problem in conservation an environmentalism where advocates develop a strong sense of "right" and "wrong" to the point where it reaches a religious ferver and they are more focused on punishing people they don't like than actually promoting the environmental cause they claim to support. So any successful program must both demonstate that the end result will have the desired result for curbing illegal trade AND the people involved must accept that achieving the desired result may require letting some people off the hook.

But in the specific case of castis the problem is a tricky one since we are already at the point where there are plenty of casti in captive populations to supply the demand. But there is the violation of the original export agreement with Brazil to contend with. I have no idea how you might appease a government to the point where they would grant legal status of these animals kept in private collections. This seems like it could get into the realm of an international treaty on bioprospecting or similar which is well beyond the scope of anything the hobby could initiate most likely. However, I think it is interesting that some of the early people who received those castis have been very up front with the authorities about having them but nobody has knocked on the door to ask for them back.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2005)

We can all sit here and talk until blue in the face but as good as your points are look how easy it was to do this. I guarantee you that there will always be people doing this.How many of you guys would turn down a breeding pair of some of these frogs even if you asked them if they were legal some of us would take the chance.I am just being honest.
later


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2005)

*castis*

Also how many of you contacted that company selling the questionable frogs in europe.I did
later


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

wort said:


> We can all sit here and talk until blue in the face but as good as your points are look how easy it was to do this. I guarantee you that there will always be people doing this.How many of you guys would turn down a breeding pair of some of these frogs even if you asked them if they were legal some of us would take the chance.I am just being honest.
> later


I'm not sure what your point is here. If you say that "there will always be people doing this", and I assume you mean buying smuggled frogs, and just accept that as truth, then you are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Just as peer pressure has been successful in slowing the tide of hybrids and selective breeding in the hobby, so could peer pressure help curb the market on smuggled frogs. I'm not saying that this alone could stop the market completely but it could help. I personally have passed on several very desirable frogs simply because their legality was questionable and I refuse to do any business with anyone involved in the illegal trade. Yet somehow I manage to maintain what I think is a very interesting and satisfying collection. With so many interesting and beautiful legal frogs available, it is very difficult for me to fathom would decide that they just HAVE to have an illegal specimen when ALL of these frogs in our collections are luxuries. I am quite confident that the world will not come to an end if mysteriosis never became established in the hobby or even if all the castis in the U.S. were rounded up and shipped back to Brazil.

What is really sad is that this "wink and nod" mentality on smuggling is actually getting in the way of the hobby having access to a wider variety of frogs. The illegal pet trade is so bad that the powers that be tend to lean heavily against ANY trade. If we as a hobby could actually stand firm against smuggling, we would have a much better chance at getting a steady influxe of small numbers of a variety of frogs.

I'm am hearing increasingly appauling first hand accounts of the devastation being wrought on wild PDF populations by smugglers. I'm hearing of entire populations of unique morphs being wiped out and their habitat destroyed by illegal collectors and these accounts are coming from multiple countries. It really has to stop.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2005)

I am not a prophet I hear and read the same things you do.I do not agree with the smuggled frogs etc. Brent most people who visit this board are people who agree with your points atleast I can speak for myself,and the fact that so many frogs or any animal for that matter get wiped out Is 
enough to make me nauscious.But as I sit here and write this I am flooded by thoughts and ideas on how to save them then I realize they are only thoughts and Ideas.
later


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

wort said:


> But as I sit here and write this I am flooded by thoughts and ideas on how to save them then I realize they are only thoughts and Ideas.
> later


Ah, now I see what you are saying. Yes, this is true but I think it is still valuable to hash out these thoughts and ideas if for no other reason than to try to influence the attitudes in the hobby because those attitudes can make a real difference. I'm convinced that the collective harping on hybrids and selective breeding in the hobby has drastically slowed the prevalence of those practices in the hobby. If such harping on smuggling can at least make people stop and think about the true costs in terms of wild frogs of obtaining a smuggled specimen, then maybe we can get people more content to add to their collections from legally available frogs.

As for turning these thoughts and ideas into actions, there have been some stirrings already. With the right leadership this hobby could get organized to foster some very useful projects. With a strong organization, I would be willing to pitch a conservation proposal to my employers but I can't do that if the hobby remains an unaffiliated collection of hobbyists no matter how caring and concerned they are. But I'm confident that the needed organization is just around the corner.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "However, I think it is interesting that some of the early people who received those castis have been very up front with the authorities about having them but nobody has knocked on the door to ask for them back"

This may simply be due to who they spoke to at USF&W. Having spoken to a number of field agents in the last 14 years while dealing with various confiscations brought to the Zoo, this may be in part due to the assignments or "agendas" so to speak of the various agents/offices. Different offices have different interests/agendas. I would suspect that if this gets to a high enough level and/or Brazil gets word of the number of castenoticus in the trade (and the resulting money) then there will be some major action around this frog. 
For example, I know of specific importations of Typhlonectes natans that have come into the USA after USF&W began enforcing the correct laws, that were ignored as the agent who recieved the report decided that there must be a mistake (as the import quotas did not list that species because the caecilian was being imported as misc eels) and did not even perform an investigation. This sort of countanence is a problem as it places a false legitimacy on the animal..... 

Ed


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

If these frogs are illegal to sell than how does this work?

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=14&de=318705


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I believe that is the point.

s


Jason said:


> If these frogs are illegal to sell than how does this work?


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2005)

I do not always think that clearly early in the morning in the shower, but late last week I had an idea if you people were serious about forming a group...
p-people
o-opposed to the
i- illegal
s-sequestering (sale)
o- of
n- nature
Some sort of group of association could start the ball rolling. Anyway, just an idea. For now, we are trying to stop smugglers by catching them in country. I think it is very important though for hopbbyists to stand up for their convictions, especially at conventions or places where they see questionable things for sale. Policing yourselves saves a lot of problems later.
j


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "If these frogs are illegal to sell than how does this work? 

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=14&de=318705"

Easy you send him the money and he sends you the frogs. However, this does not mean that you cannot be arrested for violation of the LACY act and other sundry violations. In addition I believe the statute of limitations on Federal charges is 5 years so its possible that the authorities could prosecute long after the frogs were aquired. 

Ed


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

Good! :evil: 

So how did people on this board get these frogs in the 1st place! I see some very reptibule people who have these frogs in their collection!


----------



## bradadams (Jun 3, 2004)

read the whole post


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

I have read this post a couple of times now and am still a little confused and I have a few questions. :? Everything I have read so far says they were given to the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and they gave them to other institutions without the Brazilian gov permission.

#1 Are these frogs legal to posses? 

#2 I see how some people may have gotten from the Museum or via the museum, but it sounds like they are still property of the Brazilian Government including the offspring correct?

"Hence all specimens of D Castaneoticus including those in institutions other than the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History are illegal animals and subject to confiscation. 
I understand the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is trying to get all of the Brazil Nuts back, my guess is they got in big trouble for violating their permit. " Mark

#3 IF these are legal to purchase/keep, how would I go about checking references regarding the legality of the breeders and where they obtained them?

I am still learning the art and science of keeping dendrobatids and am not planning on obtaining D. Castaneoticus until I know I can give them a good home. I am just interested in right and wrong. You can PM me the answers if you want to remain off the public forum.


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

How could the hobbyists police themselves? Their is plenty of animosity between frog breeders allready. If you look at the list of dignified top notch speakers at some of the conferences I've been to it looks like a rogues galary of smugglers and thieves. To the credit of the shows they often don't know about problems until the show is over. I think we should each keep or nose clean but not jump the other hobbyists and breeders.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

1) technically no as there was never a legal release to the pet trade. 

2) as I understand it, all according to the import conditions and agreement with the Brazilial goverment, yes they are all still owned by the Brazilian goverment. 

3) technically there are no legal ones available to anyone other than the Oklahoma Museum. All of the ones in the pet trade are illegal as per the statement made by USF&W in the first post. 

I strongly suspect that a lot of the top notch breeders may have aquired these animals without knowing that they are illegal but that information is now coming out into the open..

Ed


----------



## Jason (Oct 14, 2004)

Got it! :lol: Thanks for the information!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

One thing that still remains uncertain to me is whether possesing any of these castis actually breaks a law. I think it is clear that the frogs themselves are illegal and subject to confiscation but can people possesing them be fined or arrested because they have them (Lacy Act being an exception)? I recall a conversation with an art collector many, many years ago that claimed that buying stolen art from a thief was illegal but unknowingly buying stolen art from someone was not necessarily a crime. The art remained stolen and was subject to confiscation, but the unwitting buyer was not a criminal.


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Attached is the gist of the Lacey Act. Based on what has been said so far, I think in the case of this frog it is a double whammy (1) violation of CITES and therefore a treaty and (2) evidently a violation of Brazilian law. Ship your animals in unmarked boxes? Looks like you are violating subsection (b) also. Dendrobates castaneoticus is a Index II CITES protected animal and is therefore protected. I coudn't find the import/export data from the import, but sometimes CITES lists things as dendrobates spp. Since it is a relatively new species (1990, I think), it may not have been in the CITES database at time of export. Regardless of who did what, the challenge is repatriation of the frogs. While some of the frogs may have come from the Univesity study, it is also possible that they are still being smuggled in.


```
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
 
        CHAPTER 53--CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY TAKEN FISH AND WILDLIFE
 
Sec. 3372. Prohibited acts


(a) Offenses other than marking offenses

    It is unlawful for any person--
        (1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or 
    purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, 
    transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation 
    of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;
        (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or 
    purchase in interstate or foreign commerce--
            (A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or 
        sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in 
        violation of any foreign law, or
            (B) any plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 
        violation of any law or regulation of any State;

        (3) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
    the United States (as defined in section 7 of title 18)--
            (A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, 
        transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of 
        any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal 
        law, or
            (B) to possess any plant taken, possessed, transported, or 
        sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ So in original. Probably should be followed by ``or''.

        (4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) 
    through (4).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ So in original. Probably should refer to pars. (1) through (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Marking offenses

    It is unlawful for any person to import, export, or transport in 
interstate commerce any container or package containing any fish or 
wildlife unless the container or package has previously been plainly 
marked, labeled, or tagged in accordance with the regulations issued 
pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 3376(a) of this title.
```


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2005)

Bottom line is, all the castis in the hobby now are in violation of international law and are subject to arrest. The game commision is already stockpiling tiny handcuffs and planning a massive frog-arresting sting later this summer. :wink: 

Cricket


----------



## MJ (Jun 16, 2005)

OK so these frog are illegal then why is there a bunch of people selling them on the very open market?

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail....the world even the USA so guy's get over it .


----------



## MPepper (Feb 29, 2004)

I think you are missing the point of this thread. It seem that due to the nature of the relase of castaeneoticus into the hobby, they seem to be all technicallly illegal as are in violation of agreement between Brazil and the museum. As for why people are advertising them, thats something I will never understand, as to me it seems they are playing with fire. the situation with the vanzolini etc, that they were offering is alittle different.

Why people are upset in regards to what dartfrogs.co.uk is selling is because it seems pretty obvious to many people that these were directly smuggled frogs, as indeed they would have been had they not been confiscated, or had dartfrog.co.uk come into possesion of them, but as Tim claims in that thread once he realized they were smuggled they took the add down. 

Yes unfortunately illegal frogs are everywhere, are you suggesting we should turn a blind eye and ignore it when obviously smuggled frogs are offered for sale. Frog smuggling in peru is taking its toll on wild population, of several morphs and species. Is this something we as a hobby need to "get over" as well. I should hope not.

Another fact is that Europe is the primary(first phase) market for smuggled frogs, Im not painting all of europe with a wide brush here, as i know there are many many many honest and excellent and experienced froggers in europe, but is is primarily europeans, and only a FEW of them that are partaking in this large scale smuggling, the secondary markets are north america and asia, and ANYONE involved in any of the primary or secondary transactions is as much to blame for these problems as anyone else, be they from north america or from europe.


I feel i should add this as i believe my post on the matter may sound a little "preachy" for a lack of better word, but this is an issue very important to me, and i feel its one that should be important to the whole hobby. I was often envious of all the new frogs in europe the frogs we dont, have over here, and a little more than 3 years ago even considered attempting to import mysteriousus, I had the "new frog fever" bad, but luckily an ititial trip to Peru, and continued subsequent ones were the reality check and change in perspective needed. I dont condemn anyone for desiring new frogs, new morphs, as it does make things exciting, but its important to consider the whole picture, even if at times its an ugly one.


----------



## booboo (Jan 22, 2005)

I notice my bad boy desire as i read this. i now really want a pair and just might get them. BUT they are captive breed and have been breeding for a long period of time does this cause a problem. 

I figure it will either help to legalize them as more frogs will be introduced to the hobby which are captive breed therefor *choking off the need for any wild ones*

Or it will make more people want them and a need for smuggles. 

I personally vouch for number one. If we can sustain a good number in captive due to this museums mistake good. We will be able to (hopefully) end smuggles in because we will not need them. What makes them more illegal then an auratus they were also most likley smuggled in.

Sorry for the typos.


----------



## MJ (Jun 16, 2005)

I wasn't suggesting turning a blind eye, what i was suggesting was that yes europe does have a lot of frog the US doesn't but most of these frog were imported years ago and would probably be captive breed animals.

most of the frog species out on the market today are probably from smugled animals some where down the line.

belive me I dont agree with ripping of wild populations for our own enjoyment but i do belive in captive breeding and with out taking a few animals from the wild captive breeding wouldn't be possible. 

and if you look at it from another angle what would you prefer a captive population of frogs or no chance of having a captive population due to the fact the frogs habitat is now a building site or a nice brand new slab of concrete?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

MJ said:


> I wasn't suggesting turning a blind eye, what i was suggesting was that yes europe does have a lot of frog the US doesn't but most of these frog were imported years ago and would probably be captive breed animals.
> 
> most of the frog species out on the market today are probably from smugled animals some where down the line.


I think both of these statements are things that the frog hobby keeps telling itself so it can rationalize its actions. I don't think either can really be substantiated and I seriously question if they are true. For one thing in pre CITES days it was much easier to import frogs so "most of the frog species on the market" probably are the decendents of these old imports, not necessarily from smuggled animals. Second, new species keep miraculously appearing on the market despite a lack of legal CITES imports. I don't care if you are talking about the European or American market. We have a problem. Mark has seen the aftermath of the smuggling efforts first hand. We aren't talking about hearsay and suposition, we are talking about a well respected and qualified hobbyist who KNOWS this is causing serious problems in the wild.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Blort said:


> Attached is the gist of the Lacey Act. Based on what has been said so far, I think in the case of this frog it is a double whammy (1) violation of CITES and therefore a treaty and (2) evidently a violation of Brazilian law.


This isn't exactly what I meant. What I meant was that Lacey is a federal law with constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause. Therefore Lacey can only be triggered when the animals cross state lines. I think it is still unclear whether someone who bought the frogs in good faith without knowing about the legal status could be arrested for posessing them, assuming they haven't been transported across state lines. I'm quite sure the frogs could be confiscated, it's less clear exactly who is responsible for the crime.


----------



## dmartin72 (Oct 27, 2004)

All I'm going to say is "WOW" great read!


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

Tons of great info in this thread. I am defntely more informed on the casti situation. I defintely find myself in the frog fever now and then, for example, when looking at UK websites advertising vanzolini, granuliferus, etc.. Hopefully, if castis are seized the F&W uses them for something good, i.e. zoos, aquariums, etc...


----------



## Dunner97074 (Sep 19, 2004)

Right on David, this is a good read. I'm going to go back and read it more thorough. I didn't see anyone mention the Baltimore aquarium which has Casti's in an exibit. (watching them changed my mind about wanting to keep Casti's) So are they in violation? Hmmmm I guess I'll go back and read it again.
Mike


----------



## pa.walt (Feb 16, 2004)

to me i would not "advertise" that i have castis. from what i read even though the frogs are captive bred they still came from a frog that was not allowed in the legal market.
i heard that there was a guy in pa. that was having success breeding pa bog turtles to increase the population in pa. fish and game came and pretty much bulldozed all his property. didn't even say we'll give ou a week to get rid of the stuff just came that day and trashed everything. plus he got a stiff fine.
if they were to come to your residence they wouldn't just take you castis. it would be everything from what i read/heard. 
to me it ias a tough call on keeping them. they are a nice frog.


----------



## RGB (Jan 15, 2006)

I posted this in the other thread but i figured i'd post it here too. They are currently working on breeding D. castaneoticus with sporadic results in the INIBICO project. Hopefully some will make it into the hobby which would make the established population already in the hobby legal. Unless they find some way to track the new frogs brought in.

I find it funny that they have to further deplete the wild population to allow us to keep a species that is already established in the hobby. :roll:


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Ron,

Are you referring to dendrobates mysteriosus? Dendrobates castaneoticus is endemic to Brazil and doesn't occur in Peru.

Marcos


----------



## RGB (Jan 15, 2006)

*Re: Not quite endemic.*

From earlier in this thread:



Afemoralis said:


> Just to add to the complications regarding D.castaneoticus, it is not a Brazilian endemic. It has been found in neighboring regions of Peru (Departmento Madre de Dios) as well.


Is this info false? As far as i know INIBICO is only dealing with Peruvian species and their website says they are working with Castis.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This appears to be true. 

Ed


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

*Re: Not quite endemic.*



RGB said:


> From earlier in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ron,

Sorry, I missed that from the thread, it has been a while since I read it. I couldn't find the information on the INIBICO site which is why I asked. I still can't find it, but haven't really dug very deep.

Marcos


----------



## RGB (Jan 15, 2006)

No problem Marcos i wasn't sure myself until i checked.

The INIBICO info is at Herpetologic
Click the "Frogs" tab and the info is in there.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

As they are deploying this type of software already, then it wouldn't be that hard for them to monitor other prohibited or protected animals 

see http://informationweek.com/story/showAr ... D=54200600 

snip "

USDA Searches Web For Clues About Illegal Plants And Animals

It's deploying new search software that more intelligently finds sites that trade in flora and fauna that could harm people or the U.S. ecology. 

By Thomas Claburn 
InformationWeek 

Nov 24, 2004 04:20 PM

In an era when viruses and worms regularly compromise IT systems and cost companies millions, it's easy to forget that real-world pests are more dangerous and potentially more damaging. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, claims that the Mediterranean fruit fly and the Asian longhorned beetle alone, if left unchecked, could cost the country billions annually, to say nothing of the possible impact of mad-cow disease and other threats to public health and the economy. 

The rapid adoption of Internet commerce has complicated matters for the department. Ron Stinner, director of the Nation Science Foundation Center for Integrated Pest Management at North Carolina State University, describes how the agency came to the realization that dogs at points of entry were no longer enough. 

"We started looking at whether there were illegal plants or illegal animals and other things being sold online," he says. "And lo and behold, it didn't take long. I don't know whether you remember the mad-cow disease scare in Great Britain. We could find sites in the U.S. that were selling unprocessed British beef. So all of a sudden there was a real reason to do this." 

The USDA wanted to develop a new strategy for managing the threats posed by Internet sales of invasive species, says Ian Winborne, APHIS project manager for the pest-management center. 

"Currently, the agency manages threats from other areas by doing things like checking cargo as it comes into ports, going to nurseries to see what they're selling, and going to markets to see what kind of animal products, fruits, and vegetables they're selling," he explains. "But until recently, they had no way to manage what was going on online." 

APHIS needed a way to crawl the Web; find sites advertising dangerous animals, animal products, and plants; and then organize the results. The agency opted for search software, called Enterprise Search Platform, from Fast Search & Transfer ASA. It's using Fast Search apps in conjunction with its own Internet-based app, which allows USDA agents to manage sites singled out for scrutiny, evaluate them for risk, determine if they violate regulations, and track those cases as field inquiries are made. After two years of development, the project is up and running. 

Beyond presenting a price that met the agency's budget and working aggressively to meet the project's needs, Stinner says that Fast Search's software offered a number of features that APHIS was really interested in. 

"For example, they can handle different languages," he says. "As this program progresses, we're going to need to look at a number of different languages. One of our biggest problems is meat products from Southeast Asia." It also can search for like terms and variations on a term, "so that we didn't have to think of every single word that meant 'sold' or 'selling' or 'for sale.' " 

Unlike hackers who unleash malicious code, Stinner says, people selling illegal animals and plants often do so out of ignorance. He hopes many violators will stop what they're doing once they understand the damage they may be causing. That's been the case with eBay Inc., which Stinner says recently prohibited the sale of federally forbidden plants and animals. 

Other government agencies seem to like what they're seeing. APHIS has been working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to determine whether that agency might benefit from Fast Search's software. 

And it's not as if APHIS doesn't have enough work of its own. "We just finished a crawl and we got 31,892 URLs returned as a result of our queries," Winborne says. "We anticipate that we're going to have a pretty big load of sites that will be in violation. So even if 10% of those are violators, that's still a lot." 

It's nonetheless a pressing issue. "In some of our test crawls, we found that people are selling giant African snails, a very invasive snail species that eats all kinds of different crops and carries a kind of meningitis," Winborne says. "People are selling these to elementary schools or things like that." 
endsnip


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

I find it troubling that the USDA will knowingly bust and prosecute people that it knows are ignorant to its policies. It seems to me that if they are as concerned about invasives and noxious invasives there would be more warnings about illegal species on sites and message boards they are moitoring. I thought a little more highly of this organization before reading some of this information over the last few weeks. For example, busting the guy who was breeding bog turtles for rerelease into the wild. :?


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

*box turtles*

Actually let's just assume that this guy was really just raising box turtles for release into the wild and had no alternative motives, it's still not a good idea for a private individual to do this. 
First these cb individuals usually have different genetics than wild individuals and thus their release may detrimentally affect the fitness of the wild population. Second the cb could carry diseases which are introduced to wild pops. third cb animals usually behave differently (usually are more aggressive towards conspecifics and less wary of predators) thus they can negatively affect wild populations by attracting predators which will then also feed on wild individuals or by displacing wild individuals from "cover" habitat and thus increasing their predation rates. Finally by dumping a bunch of cb animals into a habitat which is already at carrying capacity or "full" of wild individuals you end having most of the cb guys die and some of the wild ones as well. In all these cases you actually hurt the wild populations.

As far as educating the public with all the budget cuts and bullying by the present administration.....

cheers george


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

George, I agree with what your saying regarding potential damage to wild populations, but I would also say that I think that it should be more cooperative with conscious members of the public that want ot help with conservation. After all, the percentage of the public that actually cares enough to make such an aeffort is small at best. Although, without personally knowing this fellow who is to say if his intentions were genuine. My main point is that I think that it is bad policy to bust and prosecute people that are known to be ignorant to the policies. For example, what I would like to see is the USDA make a public statement about the legality of castis on one of the boards. Then if they make a sweep it would be hard to plead ignorance to the laws, especially if you were a member of that board.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I hate when I double post... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Although, without personally knowing this fellow who is to say if his intentions were genuine. My main point is that I think that it is bad policy to bust and prosecute people that are known to be ignorant to the policies. For example, what I would like to see is the USDA make a public statement about the legality of castis on one of the boards. Then if they make a sweep it would be hard to plead ignorance to the laws, especially if you were a member of that board"

And how many people read all of the posts on the board?? Regardless of this issue, isn't ignorance of the law is not a defence a common tenent in the legal system?? A lot of this information is posted on the various webpages of the various agencies, and people do not bother to check it out... 
If you contact USF&W on the legality of castinoticus they will send you a nice response indicating that they are aware that the sales and possession of this species is illegal.... 

And releasing cb animals without major oversight is a really bad thing, as this is potentially how the mycoplasma that is wiping out the Gopher tortoises, chytrid, ranaviruses carried by tiger salamanders.... 

Ed


----------



## doncoyote (Apr 20, 2005)

I've been lurking on this one, but am going to share a couple thoughts before I fade back in to the woodwork... Background - I'm a falconer - I was not one back when Operation Falcon happened but, like nearly everyone who practices the sport in the US, I've heard about it and it has colored my view of wildlife agencies. Here's a link to the only book on the subject: The Pilgrim and the Cowboy; I've heard a lot of word of mouth from folks who were there (and from people who are just repeating stuff they've heard). Based on what I've learned about OF and taking into account the amount of time and effort I've invested in becoming a falconer, all of which goes away if I run afoul of any wildlife reg, I assume:

o Anything I post on the internet will be read by USF&W, USDA, and probably the IRS :? .

o If it's illegal, it's illegal - the fact that an agency hasn't taken enforcement action doesn't mean it won't.

o There are many reasons that an agency might decide to enforce previously ignored regs - only a few of which have anything to do with the regulated animals - think budgets, headlines, turf wars, etc.

o An agency will probably not bother to bust 1 person with castis - it makes a lot more sense to turn folks, have them turn or entrap others and so on so that when the hammer drops, headlines can read "Dozens arrested as illegal frog trade is disrupted".

There was a remark about confiscated frogs going off to be bred in zoos, etc. Leaving aside the question of whether a zoo/breeding project/etc. wants an animal of unknown provenance, I'd expect that it would be a lot more likely that the animal would end up in a jar of formaldehyde marked 'evidence' rather than frolicking around w/ it's buddies.

If JH (peregrinus) is still checking the board, he may want to comment further. It's a free country - do what you think best - just wanted to let folks know what another community's experience has been.


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

I've been going to reptile shows for as long as they have been around in Pa. and Md. It does amaze me the amount of clearly illegal animals being offered in the trade. I've had that strange feeling that I was talking to either a crook or an undercover agent on many occasions. Maybe it was a crook that is now an undercover agent. It is our resposnsibility to look into the laws and figure out what we can legally do.

It is just plain stupid to offer questionable animals for sale or trade at shows or on the internet. 

It does look like the question on casteonecticus might be muddied even more. If legal ones from Peru wind up in the hobby it will be tough to tell which frogs came from where.


----------



## RGB (Jan 15, 2006)

Michael Shrom said:


> It does look like the question on casteonecticus might be muddied even more. If legal ones from Peru wind up in the hobby it will be tough to tell which frogs came from where.


Exactly. All we need is one shipment of legal Castis to come in and there will be no way to tell which ones were already in the hobby. It still angers me to know that they would consider arresting people for keeping frogs that weren't even brought in illegally, but by a mistake were released into the hobby. I really hope this works out because i'd really like to keep some Castis someday and don't want to have to worry about getting busted.


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

Yeah, you know its getting bad when you go to a reptile show and then 20 minutes after you're there, about 50 FEDS bust in and tell everybody to line up with what you got. Then you see certain venders out of the corner of your eye hiding stuff in bags and putting the bags in boxes under tables... :? 

Was a show in IL i went to a while back... Scared the crap out of me...


----------



## froglet (May 18, 2005)

So i think i need some Clarification. Is Dendrobates castaneoticus an endangered species is Brazil ? 

Due to the fact that these animals are illegal and are still property of Brazil, why can't we just return some of them. I know this sounds silly but dont you think that if we got a group of these guys, and sayd " here Brazil have some of these back ", would that not help the cause and maybe make them think ( hey Hobbyists arent that bad ). 

I'm only saying this in the aspect that this animal is endangered, and for one i would not mind collecting some species from the Hobby and just returning them to their native home......


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

Does introducing captive bred animals weaken the gene pool in the wild though? If all the castis came from one shipment to the Oklahoma Museum then aren't all of them in the U.S. descendants of that group? I would think that the castis in the hobby today are somewhat inbred. I guess we'll have to wait until a legal shipment comes in, but until then, hide them! :shock:


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

At one time, I would have agreed that the importation of castenoticus into the USA from Peru would have legalized all of the current frogs. That was before the internet and the practice of caching web pages, and advertising what is in your collection as part of your signature. To some extent, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate that a person has admitted in a public manner to the ownership and possession of know illegal frogs and in some cases sold, transported for sale etc over state borders. I do not think that the importation (if USF&W permitted it) would resolve the risk for all of the people that have bought, sold, or advertised castenoticus. 

At this time, I think that anyone contacting Brazil over this would be significantly risk causing a crackdown as Brazil could then insist that the US goverment enforce the agreement over this species. Given how the US stands at the moment with our Southern neighbors, I suspect that this small token would be readily seized upon. I agree with the comments earlier that no one should be making comments on open forums like this unless they aren't worried about the various agents reading it..... 

If there was a massive crackdown on this species, the Zoos may hold the species until Brazil decides what to do with them. I know at work we charge per animal/per day which the goverment recovers at least in part from the person during the trial and we have held animals for over two years........ 

I have been out to locations to identify and pack up animals at several different confiscations and in at least one of those, the person was identified buying animals from either a collaborator or an undercover agent at one of the local reptile shows. They took pictures of his car and license plate as he left and then busted him at his house. 

Ed


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

I doubt brazil would want the the casti's becasue of all the problems associated with the release of captive bred animals into the wild (I explained these on the previous page). Cheers George


----------



## Michael Shrom (May 20, 2004)

It will be interesting to see if casteonecticus are offered for sale at IAD and MARS this year like they were last year. I think the question is legallity. the welfare of the animal or common sense don't always figure in when you are talking about legal issues. As hobbyists trying to keep the amphibian hobby healthy we need to err on the side of caution.


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

These frogs will NOT be allowed for sale at IAD this year.
Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

If they were sold at IAD last year it was an oversight as they were not supposed to be sold there last year.... 

Ed


----------

