# Fish and Wildlife Service Outlines Upcoming Regulations on Animal Trade



## Roadrunner

LINK:
STR

Fish and Wildlife Service Outlines Upcoming Regulations on Animal Trade
The Department of the Interior recently issued its semiannual regulatory agenda, which includes the following Fish and Wildlife Service actions affecting international trade.

• FWS anticipates publishing in the near future an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek comments on a petition to add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act unless certified as free of the chytrid fungus. An injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation of these animals into, or their transportation between, states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or any U.S. territory or possession by any means without a permit. Permits could be issued for scientific, medical, educational or zoological purposes.


----------



## Dancing frogs

Thanks for the heads up...
Wonder what the certification process would entail.

"Permits could be issued for scientific, medical, educational or zoological purposes. "
I don't see the pet trade described here...


----------



## Ed

Too little too late.. 
Chytrid is endemic in much of the USA now.. 

Ed


----------



## Dancing frogs

Ed said:


> Too little too late..
> Chytrid is endemic in much of the USA now..
> 
> Ed


Way too late...


----------



## Julio

better late then never


----------



## Roadrunner

Exactly. There would be no permitting process for us as they don`t want us to have them.
This would be an end of the pet trade in amphibians as we know it. By the way I read it possession of animals w/out permits would be a crime and they don`t plan on issuing us permits. I don`t think I could euthanize my animals, call me a criminal but....

I called the local FWS supervisor and left a message as to whether I need to file for cites and import/export permits so I should hear back from him tomorrow. 



Dancing frogs said:


> Thanks for the heads up...
> Wonder what the certification process would entail.
> 
> "Permits could be issued for scientific, medical, educational or zoological purposes. "
> I don't see the pet trade described here...


----------



## Dancing frogs

Trying to decide what color my gang will wear...
Right now it's between Green with black polka dots (ala imitator) or deep blue with irregular black dots (ala azureus)...


----------



## Roadrunner

Not really. Chytrid is everywhere and the pet trade didn`t spread it. And if they ban trade in amphibs then it`ll be spread by live bait for fishing, streams, air, birds, fish, mud on tires etc.etc.



Julio said:


> better late then never


----------



## Roadrunner

Mint, yellow or orange!


Dancing frogs said:


> Trying to decide what color my gang will wear...
> Right now it's between Green with black polka dots (ala imitator) or deep blue with irregular black dots (ala azureus)...


----------



## Dancing frogs

frogfarm said:


> Not really. Chytrid is everywhere and the pet trade didn`t spread it. And if they ban trade in amphibs then it`ll be spread by live bait for fishing, streams, air, birds, fish, mud on tires etc.etc.


Soil and soil amendments sold for gardening...truckloads and truckloads of it moving from here to there every day...


----------



## poison beauties

Now would this ban be for each individual species in which chytrid was found in imports or is this going to just be a complete ban on all amphibians in captivity. Would that mean comfiscation of private collections or do they really think everyone would turn them in? I see nothing but trouble ahead with this hobby because if this doesnt work they will just write another law until it does. Im glad I sold off most of my collection before hearing this as Im sure it will probably affect sales of darts as the word spreads. But then again the glass is always half empty to me.
Michael


----------



## Tony

I just sent an email to USARK, hopefully they will oppose this ban with the same dedication they showed toward stopping the snake bans.


----------



## poison beauties

There are differences in this issue and the herp issues such as chytrid and the fact that alot of the amphibians in our collections are rare. I would think this would be harder to deal with than the herp issues as there are fears of our own amphibian populations being wiped out. I hope they can help or atleast explain this situation a little better.
Michael


----------



## Dane

There wasn't much included on the actual wording of the proposed bill. Is there more info to be had elsewhere? And supposing a hobbyist was conscientious enough to have already Bd tested his/her collection, with the records to prove it?


----------



## Dancing frogs

Dane said:


> There wasn't much included on the actual wording of the proposed bill. Is there more info to be had elsewhere? And supposing a hobbyist was conscientious enough to have already Bd tested his/her collection, with the records to prove it?


Probably a loophole somewhere...what exactly is their definition of zoo or for educational purposes?


----------



## poison beauties

I went through the sandiego zoo a while back to test my retic collection for chytrid and ended up sending them the tissue cultures from a few imported retics I lost. Still I think its going to be the bulk studies and not private results that matter.
Michael


----------



## Ed

Dane said:


> There wasn't much included on the actual wording of the proposed bill. Is there more info to be had elsewhere? And supposing a hobbyist was conscientious enough to have already Bd tested his/her collection, with the records to prove it?


The reason there isn't more wording is because it is in the prerule stage see View Rule 

This looks to have been due to a petition by Defenders of Wildlife (see Amphibians in Crisis - Defenders of Wildlife )


I'm not going to tease it out but zoological will be defined (they will probably under the USDA definition (as the USDA has regulatory control over Zoos (and has had it for a very long time))) and the definition will exclude the hobbyist unless you are going to get permits and license to be a Zoo....

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Ed said:


> The reason there isn't more wording is because it is in the prerule stage see View Rule
> 
> This looks to have been due to a petition by Defenders of Wildlife (see Amphibians in Crisis - Defenders of Wildlife )
> 
> 
> I'm not going to tease it out but zoological will be defined (they will probably under the USDA definition (as the USDA has regulatory control over Zoos (and has had it for a very long time))) and the definition will exclude the hobbyist unless you are going to get permits and license to be a Zoo....
> 
> Ed


So what would happen to the average hobbyists collections? If something like this went through.


----------



## Ed

At the very least, there would be no further imports of any amphibians nor would there be any further interstate transport without specific permits for any reason. If the language is included to cover possession (as a injurious wildlife) then you would not be able to possess any amphibians without a permit. If it is labled as an injurious wildlife, then the permit would have to be aquired through the USDA (under APHIS), which means that permit holders are required to allow inspections... 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Thanks for the info. I guess some folks got some thinking to do if this sort of issue passes.


----------



## james67

a letter to "defenders of wildlife" 

Hello,

My name is James and I am writing you to express my dissatisfaction with your current crusade to solve the worlds Bd problem by further restricting or prohibiting the amphibian trade for the hobby/pet market, or worse attempting to create a situation where individuals who currently are involved in such dealings are depicted as criminals worthy of seizure of animals. While your proposal does not specifically outline this, it's broad wording puts hard working, respectable and law abiding citizens at risk. You are effectively attempting to take away something that many Americans consider an important freedom, without thoroughly understanding the or outlining which sectors are realistically affecting wild populations' risk of Bd infection. Where is your concrete data that shows that 'X' amount of current areas affected by Bd are the result of the current "pet" trade in amphibians? Your organization is suggesting taking away my liberties on speculation and the belief that this act will have any noticeable effect on the spread of Bd. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that your actions will prove effective in reducing the spread of Bd, yet your organization believes that it has the right to take food off of hard working American's tables by destroying their livelihood. This is unacceptable and downright un-American and I can only hope that others will rally against this action by contacting US Fish and Wildlife and raising awareness about your ridiculous proposal to ensure that your misguided attempt is defeated.

thank you,
james H

-------------------------------
the only thing we can really ever do in these situations is express how this will affect us and why we are opposed. next one will probably go to F&W.

james


----------



## billschwinn

James for President! Nicely said,I sure hope the frog community can put aside their differences and stand united against this threat, this should not be taken lightly, Bill


----------



## nathan

Maybe we could start some sort of petition we could sign and mail in? Mail to fish and wildlife and our state representatives . . .


----------



## frogface

I think additional letters and/or petitions should contain info about other sources of threat, such as mentioned in these posts:



> Not really. Chytrid is everywhere and the pet trade didn`t spread it. And if they ban trade in amphibs then it`ll be spread by live bait for fishing, streams, air, birds, fish, mud on tires etc.etc.





> Soil and soil amendments sold for gardening...truckloads and truckloads of it moving from here to there every day...


Show them that restricting the hobby will do little to nothing to solve the problem.


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Quote:
> Not really. Chytrid is everywhere and the pet trade didn`t spread it. And if they ban trade in amphibs then it`ll be spread by live bait for fishing, streams, air, birds, fish, mud on tires etc.etc.
> 
> Quote:
> Soil and soil amendments sold for gardening...truckloads and truckloads of it moving from here to there every day...


Lets get some facts into the mix here.. 

1) it is not airborn unless you are aerosolizing mist by spraying an infected amphibian hard enough to cause the mist to form... 

2) it highly unlikely to be spread via soil and soil amendments... unless the soils are wet enough to contain an active zoospore (a resting zoospore has not been found so if it sits somewhere for 24-48 hours it is no longer infective) and/or does not get above 32 C (In practicality 28 C as growth stops and this would result in the death of the zoospore..) 

3) the pet trade did and does play a role in transporting it, no point in denying it... bullfrogs and some other ranids are well known vectors and the tadpoles of these frogs have been widely sold in the pet trade for decades.. primarily for outdoor ponds resulting in a perfect vector. In addition, as zoospores are spread via water.... dumping untreated waste water from amphibian enclosures down the drain, into the garden or anywhere it can be contacted by amphibians is a significant biorisk.... and until relatively recently, no hobbyists were taking any precautions against spreading pathogens via these methods.... 

4) fish do not contract and do not spread Bd... there is a chance it could be spread via water in transport but the risks are the same as #3 

5) birds.. Bd zoospores do not tolerate dessication or temperatures above 32 C (89.6 F..)


There are other items pushing this thing forward above and beyond Bd.... the recent mass outbreak of salmonella from African Dwarf Frogs ( see Pet Frog Salmonella Outbreak Spans 31 States ) is putting pressure on the whole amphibian problem.... 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Thanks for the info, Ed. Very interesting, as usual. Do you think the proposed regulation will help? I know you said 'it's too late' earlier in the thread. If you don't think it will help, would you mind giving us (me) the reasons why?

#3 _*'dumping untreated waste water from amphibian enclosures down the drain, into the garden or anywhere it can be contacted by amphibians is a significant biorisk.... and until relatively recently, no hobbyists were taking any precautions against spreading pathogens via these methods....'* _ is something I had not thought about. What do you recommend? Collecting waste water in a container and bleaching it before disposal?


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Thanks for the info, Ed. Very interesting, as usual. Do you think the proposed regulation will help? I know you said 'it's too late' earlier in the thread. If you don't think it will help, would you mind giving us (me) the reasons why?
> 
> #3 _*'dumping untreated waste water from amphibian enclosures down the drain, into the garden or anywhere it can be contacted by amphibians is a significant biorisk.... and until relatively recently, no hobbyists were taking any precautions against spreading pathogens via these methods....'* _ is something I had not thought about. What do you recommend? Collecting waste water in a container and bleaching it before disposal?


I haven't bothered to look at the distribution maps recently as I get depressed particularly when it has become endemic in the Deleware and Susquehanna watersheds.. (and yes it has killed hellbenders...)... but once it is in a larger water shed.. that is pretty much it for distribution as the zoospores are spread via the water and depending on temperature live about 24-48 hours so however far they can be carried by the current in that time is the range of infection.... and some anurans (like bullfrogs..) and some caudates are carriers and these spread or keep the levels constant in the waterways... 

With respect to the hobbyist not taking any precautions.. it amazes me that people would think that chytrid is the only risk of being an amphibian emerging disease.. (for example, Rhabdias, and ranaviruses come to mind right away.. (and the viruses are known to have caused huge mortalities in novel locations but burned out before colonizing a larger population (with a couple of the viral outbreaks, there were close to 100% mortality of amphibians, fish, and reptiles..) 

I collect all of my amphibian and herp waste water and bleach it, then neutralize it. 

Ed


----------



## Dane

Ed said:


> Lets get some facts into the mix here..
> 
> 3) the pet trade did and does play a role in transporting it, no point in denying it... bullfrogs and some other ranids are well known vectors and the tadpoles of these frogs have been widely sold in the pet trade for decades.. primarily for outdoor ponds resulting in a perfect vector. In addition, as zoospores are spread via water.... dumping untreated waste water from amphibian enclosures down the drain, into the garden or anywhere it can be contacted by amphibians is a significant biorisk.... and until relatively recently, no hobbyists were taking any precautions against spreading pathogens via these methods....
> 
> Ed


Ed,
would you estimate that the pet trade has been more or less responsible for Bd spread as industrial/other vectors were (i.e. truck tires, bilge water, livestock movement etc.)?


----------



## james67

what about all the xenopus historically imported and released for reasons other than the pet trade? what role do they play in infecting areas, and how are we to differentiate between areas that were infected by these and those from the pet industry.

james


----------



## Ed

Hi Dane,

I can't give you a definitive answer.. as there is too little information to give you a hard answer.. 

We know for sure that chytrid has been around in Africa since 1938 (in Museum specimens of Xenopus laevis) and in bullfrogs as early as 1960 (actually maybe 1954) in North America (see http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/...north american amphibian populations copy.pdf )... Given that it was known in at least one species that was deliberately distributed not only in the pet trade but as a game species (before it's invasiveness was documented) its hard to seperate out who has done the worse damage.. I do want to point out that once the pond hobby really took hold in the US, the spread of ranid tadpoles really became very popular... Many of the pond supply magazines back in the 1970s sold them, Bio-supply companies sold them, pet stores sold them.. and demand increased in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the boom in home decorative ponds... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

james67 said:


> what about all the xenopus historically imported and released for reasons other than the pet trade? what role do they play in infecting areas, and how are we to differentiate between areas that were infected by these and those from the pet industry.
> 
> james


Pretty much all of those were released back before the 1960s (At least in California) and both the lab and pet industry are equally implicated in the spread of Xenopus... 

Ed


----------



## james67

i was primarily talking about those imported in the 30s and 40s for pregnancy tests, since from my understanding there was Bd present in the US around that time.


from what i gathered about this proposal, it IMO unfairly groups all amphibian imports, possession, and transfer. putting all of our hobby and some people's income at great risk. i just cant see how this sort of all out war against amphibians and their keepers will dramatically affect the spread.

james


----------



## Ed

This is one of the articles that they are using to justify the petition 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=783c0a5aa4a09cf4b983f21d391833c6

As far as I know, the earliest documented cases of chytrid in the US was in the late 1950s (see my post above) and Xenopus was I believe sold in the pet trade during the 1940s-1950s.. 

Ed


----------



## james67

since i can only see the abstract did they mention elsewhere what sp. they tested that led them to the 62% Bd infection statistic? how did they select individuals to be tested, from what countries, intended end use, etc. could, i believe, affect this number greatly.

also; "By 1933, doctors were using the "Hogben test" to detect hCG in urine. The Hogben test was both rapid and reliable, and it spread quickly throughout Europe and the United States over the next two decades."
which leads me to believe that even if it was undocumented until the 50s its emergence in the Us was likely much earlier.

james


----------



## Ed

I would have to dig out the article and see all of the data.. Mainly they tested species intended for the food trade.. such as bullfrogs. Samples were random and from (if I remember correctly) all countries of origin.. 
Before we argue about them being carriers.. I would have to find the references, but a different survey went to several different importers for the pet trade and chytrid was detected at all of them. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

james67 said:


> since i can only see the abstract did they mention elsewhere what sp. they tested that led them to the 62% Bd infection statistic? how did they select individuals to be tested, from what countries, intended end use, etc. could, i believe, affect this number greatly.
> 
> also; "By 1933, doctors were using the "Hogben test" to detect hCG in urine. The Hogben test was both rapid and reliable, and it spread quickly throughout Europe and the United States over the next two decades."
> which leads me to believe that even if it was undocumented until the 50s its emergence in the Us was likely much earlier.
> 
> james


The problem is that extensive testing was done on museum voucher specimens and its not like there wasn't any voucher specimens from all over being deposited into collections.. there were extensive collections done during those periods. It did not start showing up in museum specimens until the very late 1950s.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

In any case, you cannot seperate the pet trade from import for food... one can end up in the other market and neither generally uses the required biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of disease. 

Ed


----------



## Paul G

The proposal of this petition is very scary.
We will need to watch this closely and stick together.


----------



## Roadrunner

How many of those bullfrogs were for food? Bait for fishig has spread it. Bait scooped out of ponds contains tads which can and do carry it to other areas(in with fish). Streams flooding can carry frogs and skin(on dead frogs) downstream, can they not? Bats and birds eat frogs correct, not really airborne but can be transported that way. My point is that it didn`t get everywhere because of the pet trade, some of the frogs were for pregnancy testing that FIRST spread it.



Ed said:


> Lets get some facts into the mix here..
> 
> 1) it is not airborn unless you are aerosolizing mist by spraying an infected amphibian hard enough to cause the mist to form...
> 
> 2) it highly unlikely to be spread via soil and soil amendments... unless the soils are wet enough to contain an active zoospore (a resting zoospore has not been found so if it sits somewhere for 24-48 hours it is no longer infective) and/or does not get above 32 C (In practicality 28 C as growth stops and this would result in the death of the zoospore..)
> 
> 3) the pet trade did and does play a role in transporting it, no point in denying it... bullfrogs and some other ranids are well known vectors and the tadpoles of these frogs have been widely sold in the pet trade for decades.. primarily for outdoor ponds resulting in a perfect vector. In addition, as zoospores are spread via water.... dumping untreated waste water from amphibian enclosures down the drain, into the garden or anywhere it can be contacted by amphibians is a significant biorisk.... and until relatively recently, no hobbyists were taking any precautions against spreading pathogens via these methods....
> 
> 4) fish do not contract and do not spread Bd... there is a chance it could be spread via water in transport but the risks are the same as #3
> 
> 5) birds.. Bd zoospores do not tolerate dessication or temperatures above 32 C (89.6 F..)
> 
> 
> There are other items pushing this thing forward above and beyond Bd.... the recent mass outbreak of salmonella from African Dwarf Frogs ( see Pet Frog Salmonella Outbreak Spans 31 States ) is putting pressure on the whole amphibian problem....
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> How many of those bullfrogs were for food?


As I noted above we can't seperate this from the pet trade (as they were also in the pet trade as tadpoles)... I also noted above that bullfrogs were also transported as a game species. With that said, the pet trade needs to bite the bullet and admit that they probably played a pretty big role in its dispersal given the huge number of tadpoles shipped outside of thier native range for fish tanks, and ponds (can't have a pond without frogs..)




frogfarm said:


> Bait for fishig has spread it. Bait scooped out of ponds contains tads which can and do carry it to other areas(in with fish).


Don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't the case however this sort of transport is local (unlike the pet trade) and except in some rare cases within the same watershed. Once it is in a watershed, it is going to get everywhere in that watershed. 




frogfarm said:


> Streams flooding can carry frogs and skin(on dead frogs) downstream, can they not?


This is within the same watershed and again, I already covered this in my posts above. 



frogfarm said:


> Bats and birds eat frogs correct, not really airborne but can be transported that way.


The zoospores are not passed live through the digestive tract as the body temperature of the endotherm exceeds the maximal survivial temperature of the fungus not to mention the other conditions. In addition, the fungus's zoospores do not survive any level of drying....

On a side note, are there any frog predating bats in North America? 




frogfarm said:


> My point is that it didn`t get everywhere because of the pet trade, some of the frogs were for pregnancy testing that FIRST spread it.


And no one said that it had... 

Actually there is a lot of controversy that it was brought into the USA by Xenopus much less those destined for pregnancy labs.. Xenopus were sold in the pet trade during that time..... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

My point is that if your not going to go all the way to protect the frogs and their habitat, don`t start w/ the pet trade, start taking the pollution and other vectors that make the frogs more susceptable to chytrid(or any other problem) out first or don`t screw w/ our way of trying to keep them around(other than imposing chytrid testing specifically, if that is the percieved problem and then give equal ban to fertilizer runoff, pesticides, hormones, etc etc.). Scapegoat, that`s all I`m sayin. I`m not saying the pet trade doesn`t present problems(and hasn`t spread chytrid) but if your not going to go all the way to save them don`t take away our only way to be able to keep them from going extinct(whether or not you care whether they contain all the allelles that were present in the original population).



Ed said:


> As I noted above we can't seperate this from the pet trade (as they were also in the pet trade as tadpoles)... I also noted above that bullfrogs were also transported as a game species. With that said, the pet trade needs to bite the bullet and admit that they probably played a pretty big role in its dispersal given the huge number of tadpoles shipped outside of thier native range for fish tanks, and ponds (can't have a pond without frogs..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't the case however this sort of transport is local (unlike the pet trade) and except in some rare cases within the same watershed. Once it is in a watershed, it is going to get everywhere in that watershed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is within the same watershed and again, I already covered this in my posts above.
> 
> 
> 
> The zoospores are not passed live through the digestive tract as the body temperature of the endotherm exceeds the maximal survivial temperature of the fungus not to mention the other conditions. In addition, the fungus's zoospores do not survive any level of drying....
> 
> On a side note, are there any frog predating bats in North America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no one said that it had...
> 
> Actually there is a lot of controversy that it was brought into the USA by Xenopus much less those destined for pregnancy labs.. Xenopus were sold in the pet trade during that time.....
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> My point is that if your not going to go all the way to protect the frogs and their habitat, don`t start w/ the pet trade, start taking the pollution and other vectors that make the frogs more susceptable to chytrid(or any other problem) out first or don`t screw w/ our way of trying to keep them around(other than imposing chytrid testing specifically, if that is the percieved problem and then give equal ban to fertilizer runoff, pesticides, hormones, etc etc.). Scapegoat, that`s all I`m sayin. I`m not saying the pet trade doesn`t present problems(and hasn`t spread chytrid) but if your not going to go all the way to save them don`t take away our only way to be able to keep them from going extinct(whether or not you care whether they contain all the allelles that were present in the original population).



The proposal is to protect native amphibians from diseases and pathogens either directly due to either the import of infected amphibians and/or amphibians currently being held in the hobby or through interstate trasport of infected amphibians for any number of reasons (pet trade etc).... 
While those other points are for the benefit of the amphibians, those points do not do anything to resolve the problem with introduced pathogens from commerce in amphibians. 

I think I have made it clear that I don't agree with the proposal (look at my first post in this thread) but people are either including incorrect information or are going off onto tangents that have little if anything to do with the proposal. Instead of bellyaching, take a moment and post a comment to USF&W or get a lot of money together and lobby the goverment... 

I don't have a lot of hope that anything will be done other than bellyaching about it.... there is a unsubstantiated post on the Fauna Classifieds that claims that they got a report that only 200 people so far had given a comment to USF&W about the python ban (which as currently worded also impact interstate sale and commerce)... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

Read one of my first posts, I called Supervisor Inspector Mahlbauer(sp?) yesterday morning, only hours after the post of intent, to find out the scoop(he`s the chief supervisor for the area) and contact the proper people to voice my concerns. He`s a great guy and would know best whether they could even keep up w/ the intent of the bill( they said they could never enforce the fed ban w/out lots more staff). Last time I had to contact my local representative, when the law was put up in New York to ban Dart Frogs. I write, call and do what I can. It`s not up to me to do anything other than post and explain what the law would do, I can`t make people get involved. 
How can you say that there is misinformation when everything isn`t answered yet. Things like birds can carry frogs far away to eat them and can drop parts. These may not be happening everyday but they can and probably have happened. Plants alone spread more crap than anything and they don`t blanket ban them. If you show you make enough money in trade you won`t be shut down until they take away all the minor problems, which won`t do a damn bit of good in the long run.
Last i heard they weren`t sure yet if they could spore to survive drying? 



Ed said:


> The proposal is to protect native amphibians from diseases and pathogens either directly due to either the import of infected amphibians and/or amphibians currently being held in the hobby or through interstate trasport of infected amphibians for any number of reasons (pet trade etc)....
> While those other points are for the benefit of the amphibians, those points do not do anything to resolve the problem with introduced pathogens from commerce in amphibians.
> 
> I think I have made it clear that I don't agree with the proposal (look at my first post in this thread) but people are either including incorrect information or are going off onto tangents that have little if anything to do with the proposal. Instead of bellyaching, take a moment and post a comment to USF&W or get a lot of money together and lobby the goverment...
> 
> I don't have a lot of hope that anything will be done other than bellyaching about it.... there is a unsubstantiated post on the Fauna Classifieds that claims that they got a report that only 200 people so far had given a comment to USF&W about the python ban (which as currently worded also impact interstate sale and commerce)...
> 
> Ed


----------



## Catfur

Ed said:


> Too little too late..
> Chytrid is endemic in much of the USA now..
> 
> Ed





Dancing frogs said:


> Way too late...


It's never too late for the bureaucracy to use spurious reasoning to introduce intrusive, excessive regulation.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

I'm already working to contact state officials and USF&W (who gave me a number to go to someone else who can supposedly better assist me, but I can't call right now it has to be tomorrow).



Ed said:


> The proposal is to protect native amphibians from diseases and pathogens either directly due to either the import of infected amphibians and/or amphibians currently being held in the hobby or through interstate trasport of infected amphibians for any number of reasons (pet trade etc)....


I understand why they want to do this. My question is how my dart frogs are infecting native amphibians? I've had a couple of escapees before. They don't last more than a couple hours outside of their tanks. There's no possibility of my frogs mingling with native species, and even if my frogs were infected with chytrid (I have strong suspicions that they are not but won't know for sure until more people send their chytrid tests in so we can finally get them analyzed!), I make sure to disinfect myself after working with my frogs.... So, does FWS really think that my amphibians are a danger (indirect/direct, whatever) to native amphibians, or are they too lazy to take these things into consideration and have thus created this kind of blanket amendment?


----------



## Dane

SmackoftheGods said:


> So, does FWS really think that my amphibians are a danger (indirect/direct, whatever) to native amphibians, or are they too lazy to take these things into consideration and have thus created this kind of blanket amendment?


I'm inclined to say 'yes' and 'yes'.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Dane said:


> I'm inclined to say 'yes' and 'yes'.


That's fine. I'm still going to fight it tooth and nail. And let's be honest, if it passes I'm going to ignore it. I'll probably still find a way to ship my frogs too. I hear if you ship overnight through FedEx and you get your package in just before it ships out they don't have time to check it out and they'd rather have the business....


----------



## poison beauties

As far as shipping goes they will most likely never know unless you or the receiver tells them whats in the box. 5 or 6 years ago I knew of people shipping all sorts of illegal critters like venomous snakes through the big 3 shippers with no issues. I however think if something like this went through it would be near impossible to advertise the frogs and feeders and supplies would be harder to get ahold of.
Michael


----------



## frogface

So they'll be forcing the froggers underground, where they are less likely to come out to seek treatment for frogs that do have chytrid.


----------



## poison beauties

It will be hard to get anything for this hobby as many supply and feeder companies would probably get out of the buisness due to the law as frog breeders and hobbiest would for the most part quit breeding and buying. It would hurt alot of people. It would be hard to get anything in bulk for this hobby without attrackting attention as a breeder would. Then they only need your name once and they will be all in your buisness from then on.


----------



## Ed

SmackoftheGods said:


> My question is how my dart frogs are infecting native amphibians? I've had a couple of escapees before. They don't last more than a couple hours outside of their tanks. There's no possibility of my frogs mingling with native species, and even if my frogs were infected with chytrid (I have strong suspicions that they are not but won't know for sure until more people send their chytrid tests in so we can finally get them analyzed!), I make sure to disinfect myself after working with my frogs.... So, does FWS really think that my amphibians are a danger (indirect/direct, whatever) to native amphibians, or are they too lazy to take these things into consideration and have thus created this kind of blanket amendment?


Is there any reason why people are taking this personally? Arguing that your collection doesn't pose a risk doesn't help in the thread as in reality that is a small part of the big picture... I can't speak to your collection without looking at your entire protocols.. but lets look at a couple of hypotheticals.. 

1) waste streams of items from the cages.. water and/or contaminated materials (substrate, plant, etc). Water poured down a drain does not meet the requirements to prevent the passage of pathogens into the water stream. This has been discussed elsewhere on the board a number of times. 

2) escape of invertebrates that are contaminated with pathogens.. this includes during the disposal of waste materials as well as from active enclosures... keep in mind that iridoviruses from herps and amphians can jump into invertebrate hosts which means that virus can not only travel horizontally in susceptiable inverts but then reinfect a herp host...

That is the risk from private individuals.. I personally attempt to minimize the threat my collection (which I point out is under just as much threat as yours or anyone else's) and for the most part it is more tightly controlled than a number of institutions I have visited... 

It doesn't matter if the actual frog cannot access other frogs as long as the waste stream or contaminated invertebrates can end up contacting wild populations.... 

On a different note, if this information is correct, it is exactly what I am concerned about happening with the response from frog keepers.. Does no one care? PYTHON BAN - FaunaClassifieds 


Ed


----------



## Ed

poison beauties said:


> As far as shipping goes they will most likely never know unless you or the receiver tells them whats in the box. 5 or 6 years ago I knew of people shipping all sorts of illegal critters like venomous snakes through the big 3 shippers with no issues. I however think if something like this went through it would be near impossible to advertise the frogs and feeders and supplies would be harder to get ahold of.
> Michael


If it goes through and you are caught shipping then you will be subject to prosecution under the Lacy Act.. each violation can cost you significantly see 
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/Lacey.html for the penalties.... 

And the actions by the people who didn't want to deal with the appropriate methods of shipping are why they started searching boxes that they suspect contain animals. I was in on a bust where the person shipped rattlesnakes unlabled, cardboard box.. It was a big deal and they went out put on a delivery uniform and when he accepted the package arrested him.... 


Ed


----------



## BrianC

If restricting trade of exotics is not an acceptable option, what ideas do you guys have for limiting the threat to native wildlife from movement of pathogens?

Frogfarm had a good point about reducing some of the environmental changes that increase susceptibility to pathogens - but I don't really see that happening at a rate that's seems like it will be effective on it's own. So, any ideas?


----------



## kermit2

I haven't read all the responses to this post, but one thing I'd like to put out there is that USARK is not gonna help us as much as if all of us write letters and send them out. I think if all ( on dendroboard.com ) petition it as well as send out letters, and get other forums to do the very same thing, then it would help USARK and PEJAC take them on.. I don't know about you , but I'm tired of loosing freedoms.. 
Another good point is that chytrid originally came from african clawed frogs correct? why? medical field for pregnancy testing... The destruction of rainforest where the animals live for medication? medical field .. point is why don't they give the medical field the raspberries and live us the hell alone. Just a thought.


----------



## Ed

Collecting and disinfecting waste water is a good start... Not composting or discarding items that were in the enclosures into a yard or enviroment is another. Landfills are now lined and control runoff so double bagged materials discarded into that waste stream is considered acceptable at this time... 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Why not mandated chytrid testing/treatment for hobby frogs, like rabies shots for dogs and cats?


----------



## Ed

That is part of the proposal to be able to get a permit.. 

What frequency is acceptable? 

Now how does that resolve the risk for other novel amphibian EIDs? 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Ed said:


> If it goes through and you are caught shipping then you will be subject to prosecution under the Lacy Act.. each violation can cost you significantly
> 
> Now breaking the law is not nor has never been my thing as I was happy to use delta as the albino eastern diamondbacks I breed were going for about 2500-3500 apiece at the time but it happens everyday though I saw and heard of it more in the earlier part of the decade. If this law or one like it does pass the chances are you will be discovered long before you ship as it will be hard to sell a frog without advertising it.
> But I do think there is big trouble coming for this hobby. By time its said and done the required procedures and laws will likely drive many if not all hobbyists away.
> Its not like the python issue, The bulk of the frog issues are invisible to the eye in which they can use fear to get the average person behind them. They have the backing of animal right activists and anyone else who buys into this hobby caused all of this.


----------



## skylsdale

Ed said:


> ...but people are either including incorrect information or are going off onto tangents that have little if anything to do with the proposal.


This is worth reposting.


----------



## BrianC

poison beauties said:


> ...But I do think there is big trouble coming for this hobby. By time its said and done the required procedures and laws will likely drive many if not all hobbyists away.... They have the backing of animal right activists and anyone else who buys into this hobby caused all of this.


There's big trouble coming for our native fauna too (fauna which is just as exciting and beautiful as darts are, but which also supports ecosystem services which are critical to human wellbeing).

There has been some discussion here and elsewhere about the degree to which the pet trade and hobbyists are responsible for chytrid spread, but I don't think the proponents of this legislation are looking to punish frog enthusiasts - they're concerned about the future spread of any pathogen, not just chytrid. Consider that transporting any exotic animal for any reason does pose some threat to populations.



kermit2 said:


> ...I haven't read all the responses to this post...


Please do! This is important stuff, and I would encourage everyone to educate themselves to the full extent they can. If we really don't want restrictive laws, than it seems like a good step would be for us all to become knowledgeable and voluntarily take action to reduce risk.



Ed said:


> Collecting and disinfecting waste water is a good start... Not composting or discarding items that were in the enclosures into a yard or enviroment is another. Landfills are now lined and control runoff so double bagged materials discarded into that waste stream is considered acceptable at this time...
> 
> Ed


Controlling what comes out of enclosures would be a good step, but I can't think of many ways to get people to do that, especially while it is clear that many otherwise responsible hobbyists don't fully understand or consider the threats that pathogens pose. Even of those that understand some are sure to simply not care, or to play the odds that their irresponsibility won't contribute to an ecological disaster.

Could education about and voluntary compliance to preventative measures be a viable option? Would it be worth it to have at least some degree of restrictions on exotics (of any kind) to add some accountability and discourage people who don't care enough. It would certainly be detrimental to some industries and a pain for some individuals, but what price would be worth biosecurity and the preservation of our natural heritage?


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> That is part of the proposal to be able to get a permit..
> 
> What frequency is acceptable?
> 
> Now how does that resolve the risk for other novel amphibian EIDs?
> 
> Ed


But isn't that just for zoos and whatnot? Does the permit apply to the hobbiest?


----------



## poison beauties

I agree that our local fauna are just as important as any other but the exotics are allready here and if something like this went through it would not only hurt the hobbyists but would also end with known lines of endangered frogs dieing off as there are not enough people registered to keep them going without the average hobbyists. When you think about it there are far more of us working to keep them around than there are institutions though the bulk of us also contributed to this problem.


----------



## skylsdale

poison beauties said:


> ...if something like this went through it would not only hurt the hobbyists but would also end with known lines of endangered frogs dieing off as there are not enough people registered to keep them going without the average hobbyists.


If you're going to make such a dire and broad sweeping statement, it would probably be best if you could provide some specific examples. What specific species are you referring to here that would perish if hobbyists couldn't keep them?



> When you think about it there are far more of us working to keep them around than there are institutions though the bulk of us also contributed to this problem.


The problem with hobbyists is that they tend to be fickle and fade in and out of the hobby...one of the reasons many institutions are hesitant to work with folks from the private sector. If we take your statement at face value (i.e. inferring private individuals keeping and managing a species of concern in a serious captive breeding program)...I would actually say the exact opposite is true: there are a very few doing actually doing this. Simply keeping frogs in a home collection isn't conserving them.


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> But isn't that just for zoos and whatnot? Does the permit apply to the hobbiest?


We don't know what they mean yet. It is in the prerule stage... 

Ed


----------



## kermit2

Unfortunately they do not see it that way for breeders and hobbiest.. Keep in mind that people like PETA and other organizations that are simular believe that all animals belong in the environment.. Well the environment is diappearing fast.. That is what they are not grasping.. Some of these animals will only exist because of breeders and hobbiest.. Not saying that we are here to save the world of amphibians, but we are helping matters. I'm proud to take part in something like that..Just as anyone that breeds should.


----------



## BrianC

poison beauties said:


> I agree that our local fauna are just as important as any other but the exotics are allready here and if something like this went through it would not only hurt the hobbyists but would also end with known lines of endangered frogs dieing off as there are not enough people registered to keep them going without the average hobbyists. When you think about it there are far more of us working to keep them around than there are institutions though the bulk of us also contributed to this problem.


Having an imported exotic that is already established (in the hobby, or even released to the wild) doesn't mean that any issues that is could cause have already happened or come to light. Many times the ecological impacts of these things don't manifest for some time after introduction.

The dendrobatid captive breeding thing is a whole other debate that I don't know much about. It's been hashed out in other threads here, and the impression that I get is that in actuality the proportion of hobbyists who's animals are potentially useful for that purpose is relatively small. I'm sure some of the ASN folks could be more informative about that side of things...


----------



## poison beauties

Now I was simply stating that the hobbyists keep more of these amphibians than the institutions. If we did not than this hobby would not be as big as it is and there would not be an issue of fighting this situation. And as for hobbyists getting in and out of it, The frogs stay here. Its not like they are euthenized at the hobbyists departure. They simply change hands as they do with zoos and institutions. I was quick to say many of us are also to blame but dont think the institutions will be able to maintain these species longer than we can. They will ultimately lose money as we pay our own way. If something happened to one of the institutions such as a major hurricane, or any eco disaster after the law was passed it could wipe out a big portion of amphibians and they would not be replacable. As of now many rare species are scattered across the US thanks to the hobbyists. There are simply too many species out there in danger of disapearing for only a handfull of people to care for and preserve.If you really think that they could keep every species alive and well for generations to come without us you are mistaking. Do you really think frog lovers are going to want to pay taxes to keep the institutions running after they take away our rights to have them? I think alot of people would have problems with that. And when its said and done for us the activists will go after who? The institutions. 
We are getting off track now. Blame wont help noone here and will only split the union we need right now!


----------



## frogface

> I'm not going to tease it out but zoological will be defined (they will probably under the USDA definition (as the USDA has regulatory control over Zoos (and has had it for a very long time))) and the definition will exclude the hobbyist unless you are going to get permits and license to be a Zoo....
> 
> Ed


Ok now I'm really confused. I thought the above post meant the hobbyist would be excluded from the permits.



> But isn't that just for zoos and whatnot? Does the permit apply to the hobbiest?





> We don't know what they mean yet. It is in the prerule stage...


----------



## Ed

Dancing frogs said:


> Probably a loophole somewhere...what exactly is their definition of zoo or for educational purposes?


My comment about the definition of Zoo was in response to the above quote looking for a loophole. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Regardlless of the rest of my answers in this post.. what do you think attempting to hold institutions hostage accomplishes? Institutions didn't file the petition, they aren't pushing for the ban... 
The same groups that want to shut down the pet trade want to shut down institutions.... so your just helping them out.. Do you really think USF&W cares whether or not you stop supporting Zoos or Aquariums? How does that help fight this rule change? 




poison beauties said:


> And as for hobbyists getting in and out of it, The frogs stay here. Its not like they are euthenized at the hobbyists departure..They simply change hands as they do with zoos and institutions.


All this is offtopic but I should add some comments here... 

As a counter point, I am going to bring up D. auratus which has been consistently imported into the USA by the thousands for more than 20 years. Given that these frogs can easily live for more than a decade (maximal life span is closer to 24 years).. then where are all of the frogs. When a hobbyist gets out, there is no guarantee that 
1) the frogs are still alive
2) that the end up in the hands of someone who will keep them alive 

Zoos track them and can show thier final disposition (it is recorded in ISIS).. the hobby as a whole cannot do that... 




poison beauties said:


> I was quick to say many of us are also to blame but dont think the institutions will be able to maintain these species longer than we can.


And on what do you base this premise? 



poison beauties said:


> They will ultimately lose money as we pay our own way.


And what makes you think this is true? Institutions are not dependent on the sale of animals as a source of funding (and in many Zoos, the animals are transferred gratis (no charge)). Institutions are dependent on donations and gate admission...... 



poison beauties said:


> If something happened to one of the institutions such as a major hurricane, or any eco disaster after the law was passed it could wipe out a big portion of amphibians and they would not be replacable.


Outside of a couple of species that are only held at one or two Zoos and is extinct in the wild, there is nothing in the prerule language or in current language that indicates that Zoos would have any problems other than probably having to quarantine the amphibians in a special facility (this is already done for primates, many birds and bats that are imported from other countries so the regulations, facilities, and infrastructure is already in place. And if they have quarantine facilities that prevent viruses from ebola from getting out.. chytrid etc are not going to be a concern). It will only depend on whether the Zoo wants to go through the hassle to get the amphibian. In any case, many institutions are moving away from programs based in the US as they get more bang for thier buck overseas... 




poison beauties said:


> As of now many rare species are scattered across the US thanks to the hobbyists. There are simply too many species out there in danger of disapearing for only a handfull of people to care for and preserve.If you really think that they could keep every species alive and well for generations to come without us you are mistaking.


Actually this is incorrect.. .Virtually all amphibians being kept by hobbyists do not meet the published standards for any form of return to the wild, as a further complication (if one peruses the literature, virtually none are being managed to ensure a healthy population going forward. There is virtually no preservation of any species (even common ones) done by even the minimal standards in the literature. I'm not going to debate this on here as its been hashed to death in other threads... I suggest those interested can look up the literature for themselves. 

Do


poison beauties said:


> you really think frog lovers are going to want to pay taxes to keep the institutions running after they take away our rights to have them? I think alot of people would have problems with that. And when its said and done for us the activists will go after who? The institutions.
> We are getting off track now. Blame wont help noone here and will only split the union we need right now!


I think as a percentage of visitors for Institutions the number of froggers who would protest in this manner is very very tiny.... 


This is very offtopic in any case, and I won't respond to this further in this thread..

Ed


----------



## jubjub47

Ed, I'm going to direct this towards you since you probably will have the most knowledge in this department. Not knowing what exactly this would entail since it's still early on, is this something that the ASN program and it's stewards could be granted permits within the program as an institution? There may not be enough known information to know for now, but I figured you might have a bit of inside knowledge of how that type of infrastructure is handled in similar cases.

Chances are there will be a lot of revision to this before anything actually happens so much of this is probably just hypothetical. Thanks for the info Ed.


----------



## Ed

It is too soon to tell what the actual rule would be... If I understand it correctly, we are a institution for the purposes of ISIS but we do not meet the definition of a Zoological institution under the USDA regulations. 

Under the very basic description of the proposed rule change, it may be possible but it would require that all participents in ASN get all of thier frogs tested but this is total speculation at this point. 

People should keep in mind that most states actually require a health certificate signed by a vet before interstate shipping of wildlife... now this has not usually been enforced doesn't mean that it couldn't.. the link can be found by scrolling down to the state links USDA - APHIS - Import and Export

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Ed's right. I'm taking this a little personally. It's not the right thing to do either, they're not attacking me directly, but what they're doing _is_ affecting me directly (or what they're _attempting_ to do _may_ affect me directly). So I don't really know how to fix the way I feel about it.



kermit2 said:


> one thing I'd like to put out there is that USARK is not gonna help us as much as if all of us write letters and send them out. I think if all ( on dendroboard.com ) petition it as well as send out letters, and get other forums to do the very same thing, then it would help USARK and PEJAC take them on..


I'll echo this, but I think it would be very helpful if someone could post some specific information about where to send my letters, who to contact. I already know how to contact my local representatives, but I'd like to be able to contact someone from the FWS who's a part of this. I'm betting if that person got a phonecall from every registered member (hell, maybe just ever _active_ member) on the board they'd get so frustrated that they'd repeal the amendment just to keep from hearing us anymore. Who _specifically_ do I contact?


----------



## SmackoftheGods

who has to vote on this for it to pass? Is it going to be a senate thing, a house thing, something strictly within the FWS?


----------



## billschwinn

Jake, I think we have to wait until they ask for public comment which they will announce in the Federal Register I beleive. We also as a group of pet keepers and or breeders should have already been involved in assisting the Snake breeders with their public comment letters which the deadline is Tues the 11, next week.I have been involved all along with the snake people and their efforts to protect their rights which are under attack from the same groups and Govt. agencies that are now turning towards us. There is strength in numbers, we should stand united in this fight. I would suggest everyone take a look at the USARK and PIJAC websites and become involved, complacency will get us no where, Bill


----------



## kristy55303

I'm still trying to catch up here and very sorry for that. When you are talking about the USDA etc.... are they trying to pass a law like they do for other mammals such as sugar gliders? Will it be something to the effect ( if passed ) where it will be the same standards as I have to go through with :

-scheduled inspections
-surprise inspections
- i can not tranfer or sell to anyone that is "supposed" to be licensed
- i can not buy from anyone that is required to be licensed
-detailed record keeping, proper food storage, IRS is involved, etc etc?

The reason i ask is when my inspector ( she is great but by the blue book) came to inspect and i was licensed.... she noticed my frogs, asked about them and made a very stern comment that amphibians and reptiles were not regulated "YET" it was almost the way she said the word "yet" that raised an eyebrow as if she knew something i didnt.??

or is it beyond this kind of license? much more strict and worrysome here as hobbysists and breeders will be deeply affected not to mention all the other effects a law like this passed could have on even being allowed to own amphibians, trade, sell or whatnot?


----------



## Paul G

I agree.
This snake bill has to die. If that bill passes all herps are in trouble.
All herp people need to come together if any of us are to last.

United States Association of Reptile Keepers - USARK
Kill-Rule Change
Welcome to PIJAC | Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

Also, for those who are curious as the source of the petition to FWS....
Petitions urge protections for native amphibians from deadly disease - Defenders of Wildlife
Amphibians in Crisis - Defenders of Wildlife





billschwinn said:


> Jake, I think we have to wait until they ask for public comment which they will announce in the Federal Register I beleive. We also as a group of pet keepers and or breeders should have already been involved in assisting the Snake breeders with their public comment letters which the deadline is Tues the 11, next week.I have been involved all along with the snake people and their efforts to protect their rights which are under attack from the same groups and Govt. agencies that are now turning towards us. There is strength in numbers, we should stand united in this fight. I would suggest everyone take a look at the USARK and PIJAC websites and become involved, complacency will get us no where, Bill


----------



## Ed

kristy55303 said:


> -
> The reason i ask is when my inspector ( she is great but by the blue book) came to inspect and i was licensed.... she noticed my frogs, asked about them and made a very stern comment that amphibians and reptiles were not regulated "YET" it was almost the way she said the word "yet" that raised an eyebrow as if she knew something i didnt.??


There are two different discussions that mention the USDA, one is a discussion over possibly being able to loophole under the prerule's mention of being able to get a permit under zoological requirments, the other is that many states technically require a health certificate to be able to ship animals from state to state and technically illegal to ship without one. The point in this case being is that the states themselves could in effect regulate any concern by requiring interstate shipments to be free of chytrid etc and so stated on a health document. 

Yes, the USDA has had a program in the works that they have not implemented yet (mainly due to budgetary reasons) that at some point will regulate display, educational use and commercial reproduction of amphibians and reptiles (much as they do for many mammals). They have had that intent for more than 20 years now and the plan has been all that time to roll it out after they roll out the one for captive birds.... 

Ed


----------



## spottedcircus

I dont think that the USDA as are as the animal care division will get involved any time soon. I work for them as an inspector. It took years to get birds rats and mice listed as to start regulating them and they are still not being inspected nor do they have regulations I. Place yet or them. I'm guessing that if any division would cover them it would be veterinary services or wildlife services. Someone currently couldn't be licensed as a zoologoical park only for reptiles. I don't know who exactly to comment to yet but ill be watching the federal register closley for the comment period.


----------



## Ed

spottedcircus said:


> I dont think that the USDA as are as the animal care division will get involved any time soon. I work for them as an inspector. It took years to get birds rats and mice listed as to start regulating them and they are still not being inspected nor do they have regulations I. Place yet or them. I'm guessing that if any division would cover them it would be veterinary services or wildlife services. Someone currently couldn't be licensed as a zoologoical park only for reptiles. I don't know who exactly to comment to yet but ill be watching the federal register closley for the comment period.


The USDA officials that have come to my employer's for inspections have commented that herps will be regulated as well but as I mentioned, they have been telling us that for at least 20 years so far without any implimentation date. 

Ed


----------



## iljjlm

Well if it turns out that we have to get permits and inspections and it is the USDA that will be doing the inspections, that might be a good thing. That is, If you look how well the USDA does at inspecting all quality beef,pork,poultry that is produced in this country.

Of course, if you look at it from the perspective of the native wildlife than it would be in no better shape than it is now.

Dave


----------



## skylsdale

The ASN Chytrid Study could help reveal what the actual level of presence the fungus has in captive Dendrobatid collections (assuming enough folks return their test kits).

Now, assuming it is in fact present in collections...exactly how does it benefit wild amphibian conservation if chytrid-infected frogs are being shipped/spread around, especially given the lax containment and treatment procedures that appear to be typical with the vast majority of the hobby?

The focus of regulations such as this one isn't tropical amphibians: its the protection of wildlife and ecosystems native to this continent upon which we, in a variety of ways, are interconnected and upon which we depend. 

Hysteria can be a great motivator, but a poor foundation for future progress. I would recommend people take a few breaths, calm down, and actually look at the issue and the *FACTS* surrounding it before getting caught up in a bunch of misinformation and apocalyptic scenarios.


----------



## Chris Miller

skylsdale said:


> Hysteria can be a great motivator, but a poor foundation for future progress. I would recommend people take a few breaths, calm down, and actually look at the issue and the *FACTS* surrounding it before getting caught up in a bunch of misinformation and apocalyptic scenarios.


Ron, quit trying to ruin everyone's fun with facts.

Seriously people, rather than freaking out at this stage, ask yourself if you are doing everything you can to prevent the spread of pathogens from *your* collection to the surrounding area and beyond. Maybe we should actually care about the potential problem and take it upon ourselves to make sure we aren't part of it, unlike the lackadaisical big snake people who really haven't done anything major (if you can even call it that) about their issues until recently. 

It's all fine to say we don't want the government to take away our freedom (I'm pretty much a libertarian) but we know how the government overreacts to things. We have no one to blame but ourselves for increased government regulations if we know what the potential problem is, be it pathogens or illegal trade, and do nothing to stop it. 

Granted, this may not stop rule changes and we may still need to fight things tooth and nail but what are we supposed to say in our letter writing campaign? "These are my frogs and I'll do as I please." "If you take away these frogs then you will hurt people economically" Neither one of those statements address the issues that any ban will address. We need to provide them with a viable alternative, say (and actually do) the things that will prevent the spread of pathogens. Sanitize your waste water. Double bag what you can't sanitize. Get your frogs tested. There's no reason not to.

Yes, way more people keep frogs than are on dendroboard and even among those on dendroboard few will probably do the right thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be more responsible.

Some thoughts.


----------



## MPepper

Well said Chris.

This whole issue is a complex one that may have far reaching implications. Thinking out loud here…please bear with me, as this is a tricky issue for me to get my head around and fully assess how I feel about it. I am sure many of you are equally confused and/or conflicted.

Will native amphibians really be better off if interstate transport is restricted or stopped?

I am all for changes to many aspects of our hobby and the pet industry including raising ethical standards, husbandry, quarantine protocols etc.

Assuming, worst case (for the hobby), that someday interstate movement of amphibians is outright banned will native amphibians be better off. Honestly I doubt it. 

Will industry and the consumption and pollution/exploitation of native resources/environments necessary to support these amphibians, by industry and a growing population stop? No.

Will the spread of chytrid stop? Likely not. We need to remember that Bd and other pathogens are spread in parts of the world where there is nothing which resembles a “pet trade”. Obviously there are some natural dispersal mechanisms at play. 

The fungus is here, and has been for some time, that is miserable enough. I hope that any regulatory changes address the concerns of the DOW proposal as well as the concerns of hobbyists, most of whom, I know care greatly about the state of amphibians the world over. Hopefully, the outcome of this movement will not be too heavy handed (towards the hobby), and will be worded/implemented in a way that will benefit native amphibians and potential risks to them and their environs

With increasing efforts underway towards sustainable, ethically and legitimately produced amphibians throughout South America, these projects which are working directly in the most amphibian diverse countries in the world could be hurt by this. The potential to fund conservation, research and education initiatives derived from sales within the US could be stifled depending on how this unfolds.

You (we) are a passionate group who care greatly about these animals, in the wild and in captivity. Take this as an opportunity to, when appropriate, use your voices and express your concerns intelligently and coherently. Take this also as an opportunity to reassess and improve overall, husbandry practice, sanitation etc. If we begin to do these things proactively I think we will all be better prepared to address concerns in the future.

Changes are coming one way or another, hopefully ones we can all live with. 

Hopefully TWI can play an intermediary role and effectively address concerns from all sides.


----------



## BrianC

MPepper said:


> ...Assuming, worst case (for the hobby), that someday interstate movement of amphibians is outright banned will native amphibians be better off. Honestly I doubt it.
> 
> Will industry and the consumption and pollution/exploitation of native resources/environments necessary to support these amphibians, by industry and a growing population stop? No....


I, like you, experience some inner conflict about this issue and I really applaud the exhortations in recent posts to look at all the facts and to consider realistic scenarios. I hope that you (or anyone) won't feel personally attacked by anything I say. I just want to clarify things and educate myself and others...

What is the basis for doubting that slowing or halting interstate movement of hosts will not have an effect on natives? My limited understanding of epidemiology led me to the opposite conclusion.

Other pressures (ie pollution, habitat loss) certainly play a huge role here, but I worry that frog enthusiasts are too quick to point fingers elsewhere rather than looking at our own impact through a critical lens. I'm surprised to see that frog enthusiasts see the fish and wildlife service as an enemy when they are trying to protect native amphibians.


----------



## Ed

Also keep in mind that pollution and stress from enviromental factors actually makes the amphibians more susceptiable to novel pathogens. 

Ed


----------



## frogface

MPepper said:


> You (we) are a passionate group who care greatly about these animals, in the wild and in captivity. Take this as an opportunity to, when appropriate, use your voices and express your concerns intelligently and coherently. Take this also as an opportunity to reassess and improve overall, husbandry practice, sanitation etc. If we begin to do these things proactively I think we will all be better prepared to address concerns in the future.



There are some things we can do ourselves, starting now (for those who don't already). I'm new to the hobby and am not aware of many of the ways that sanitation and husbandry relate to this subject. I learned, from this thread, that amphibian waste water should be treated before disposed. I imagine I'm not the only one who lacks even that basic understanding of the issues, and, this information is not out there and in your face. You have to go looking for it.

I suggest a sticky in every section on this site, so that it is visible for all who visit and not only those who visit particular sections (such as 'beginners' 'breeding' etc). This sticky would have a beginning paragraph outlining the problems and then bullets of the many ways each hobbyist can can adopt proper handling and protocol to combat the problems from their own collections. Perhaps finish it off with links to various organizations that have add'l info.

The breeders and sellers could put info about this on their websites. On the home page and with links back to the home page from all the other pages on the site.

Make it hard for the hobbyist to miss this information, as, it appears to be something we should all be aware of.


Anyway, just an idea from the eyes of a noob.


----------



## BrianC

While I am somewhat skeptical that voluntary measures will ever be enough - I think you have a fantastic idea there!


----------



## MPepper

Hi Brian,

as I said, I am extremely conflicted, and I am fully aware that I don't have it within me to properly assess this situation from all sides without bias, or without emotion. To be honest, I have dedicated my entire adult life to working in this hobby, and trying to make it better, and can't help but be concerned for its future, maybe that is selfish. I am simply trying to share how I feel about the issues, hopefully to help some others see things from different perspectives. I certainly don't see taking steps to protect native wildlife as a bad thing in anyway.

Regulations are great if they work and encourage greater responsibility and higher standards and achieve tangible progress towards a desired goal.

As I said chytrid moves in and spreads in countries where there is not anything resembling a pet trade (or not what we have here for a pet trade). I have seen this, In Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru, natural mechanisms are at play as well, and as Ed noted, pollution leads to greater susceptibility to these things .... I feel there are more to blame, and more factors involved than the hobbyists/frog trade and the movement of frogs themselves. Certainly irresponsible imports of sickly animals and their ultimate disposal should have been dealt with long ago. Indeed the animal trade is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in currently, if for nothing else we should have done a better job of self-policing ourselves years ago.

It really is tough dilemma to fully comprehend.. 

I don't see USF&W, CITES etc as the enemy, as I have found the opposite to be true, in all of my experience with them, which have been extensive they have been approachable and helpful.


----------



## deviousk

So do you guys think it might too late to get into the hobby. I currently own a reef tank and we are about to go through the same thing. I thought they were trying to fix the economy. It seems to me like they are making it worse if these regulations pass. Alot of people will go out of business.


----------



## Tony

Ed said:


> Also keep in mind that pollution and stress from enviromental factors actually makes the amphibians more susceptiable to novel pathogens.
> 
> Ed


Is it really that simple though? As one counterexample, the IUCN credits polluted water for preserving the population of Agalychnis annae around San Jose, the frogs are apparently more resistant than Chytrid.




> Despite the apparent adaptability of this species, it is nonetheless subject to unconfirmed factors that have caused amphibian faunas to decline in certain locations in Central America, in particular the fungal disease, chytridiomycosis. *It is possible that this species survives only in polluted areas because the chytrid fungus is more susceptible to pollution than the frog.* The few, known remaining populations of this species are threatened by an introduced fish (Xiphophorus hellerii) that preys on the larvae. This species is also found in the international pet trade.





> Research is needed to determine whether or not this species can survive only in polluted areas, because of the ineffectiveness of the chytrid fungus in such environments. *If this proves to be the case, then well-meaning conservation measures to abate water pollution could unintentionally lead to the extinction of this species.* Given the nature of the threats, it may be worth considering the establishment of a captive-breeding programme for this species.


Emphasis mine. Also noteworthy is the suggestion to establish a captive bred population, which is precisely what is being done within ASN.

Agalychnis annae (Blue-sided Treefrog)


----------



## skylsdale

Tony said:


> Emphasis mine. Also noteworthy is the suggestion to establish a captive bred population, which is precisely what is being done within ASN.
> 
> Agalychnis annae (Blue-sided Treefrog)


Absolute side note: a TMP is also underway for this species so we can be sure to properly manage the captive population(s), especially given its precarious status in the wild.


----------



## Roadrunner

skylsdale said:


> Hysteria can be a great motivator, but a poor foundation for future progress. I would recommend people take a few breaths, calm down, and actually look at the issue and the *FACTS* surrounding it before getting caught up in a bunch of misinformation and apocalyptic scenarios.


Hysteria? Not in the least. This is a personal attack the way it is worded and should be responded to as such. If that would have been proposed regulation and not an end to captive amphibians by not issueing permits I would have backed it as such. F+W isn`t under attack, at least not by me. Defenders of wildlife has proposed the bill and my beef is with them. If they would have said to test for chytrid or anything else, I would have not a problem in the least. If they wanted it to be mandatory to have an autoclave I`m all for it. If you have to use x amount of bleach/gallon of waste water, still no problem. Everything double bagged and in the trash, o.k. by me. I`d be fine w/ a lot of things in term of mandatory regulation some of which I already do. If this wasn`t the 3rd bill trying to ban my job and something I`ve been passionate about and supported for about half my life I probably wouldn`t be so pissed. This "movement" started in NYS to ban darts/monitors,boas, pythons etc. Then it went to the federal level and was only squashed by an overwhelmingly large letter campaign. Now they are dividing and conquering. 
As I said, I have no problem w/ regulations and permits as long as they are made available, but that`s never stated in these laws, it`s always agenda driven for an all out ban. Can you believe that the NYS law said you can keep your dart frogs but they`d have to be spayed or neutered. How do you neuter an escudo? These proposals are written by people who know nothing about animals other then the fact that they don`t want people to OWN them. If it had anything truly to do about chytrid it would have happened a long time ago. The people who write these laws look for an after the fact thing they can latch on to to have some legal precedent or link to control other people. Why else would they propose a law to test for a disease that is already all over the country? Why would they have not regulated it like VHS disease in bait fish, that went thru quick and was imposed all over NYS? I heard about it one week and was told I had to keep my reciept for FWS check the next.
We all know how black markets work, why would someone propose testing and outlawing in the same bill? If they are outlawed they get shipped around under the radar and no one would ever test for fear of being linked. I mean really think about it.


----------



## Tony

frogfarm said:


> Hysteria? Not in the least. This is a personal attack the way it is worded and should be responded to as such.


Exactly. They are proposing to make our hobby a felony, and we are not supposed to be outraged? We have to fight this and fight hard, because nobody else is likely to come to our aid. Froggers are the black sheep of the herp hobby, at best an afterthought for most in the business. Snake people can't get it together long enough to fight their own bans, they certainly won't be of any help to us, and if you think institutions are going to speak in our defense you're kidding yourself. They get a great deal out of the proposal, all the free animals they can confiscate, and then charge us to visit our own frogs! Complacency will be the end of us.


----------



## Ed

Tony said:


> Is it really that simple though? As one counterexample, the IUCN credits polluted water for preserving the population of Agalychnis annae around San Jose, the frogs are apparently more resistant than Chytrid.


My quote was to amphibian EIDs in and pathogens in general.. (see the folllowing abstracts and articles for examples SpringerLink - Journal Article 
and Role of environmental pollutants on immune functions, parasitic infections and limb malformations in marine toads and whistling frogs from Bermuda - International Journal of Environmental Health Research and 
ESA Online Journals - ATRAZINE INCREASES RANAVIRUS SUSCEPTIBILITY IN THE TIGER SALAMANDER, <i>AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM</i> and Pesticide Mixtures, Endocrine Disruption, and Amphibian Declines: Are We Underestimating the Impact? for a small sample...) however I'm not sure I buy into the pollution aspect as I think newer information has alternatives that fit better with what we know about chytrid and temperature (see https://www-internal.jcu.edu.au/internal/groups/public/documents/journal_article/jcuprd_052698.pdf ) 



Ed


----------



## Ed

Off-topic and my last comment on it.. 

While it may feel personal, it isn't personal unless a person is specifically named simply because you are also being swept up in a huge net does not mean it is personal or even targeted specifically at a specific person. The main target for the bill is the massive amount of frogs imported into and transhipped through the country (or even back out of the country) for the food trade. The pet trade is included is because it can't be excluded as part of a prerule.

The rest is on topic and I will comment on it further if needed... 

There is nothing in the prerule that states permits will or won't be available. It is a prerule. To assume anything else is making false assumptions. That has to be determined during and post the comment period. 

People are again making assumptions on the final rule based on the prerule language.. A lot of the distribution data for chytrid wasn't available when the petition was made and in any case the position that its worthless for chytrid does't take into account other pathogens that are coming into the country.


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Ed said:


> People are again making assumptions on the final rule based on the prerule language..


Is that necessarily a bad thing? I've found that typically politicians and law-makers put a great deal of emphasis on linguistic semantics.


----------



## Roadrunner

I see so it`s just coincidence that all these laws trying to ban pets are happening in the last 2-3 years?

From Defenders of wildlife site:
Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (NWIPA)

Defenders supports H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, which would bring much-needed regulation to the current wide-open system of allowing nonnative species to enter the United States without prior risk assessment.

Every year, thousands of nonnative wild animals are legally imported to the United States to supply the pet, aquarium, live food, live bait, and other industries. Some of these animals, once released, may become established and invasive in their new surroundings. Invasive species can carry severe consequences for native wildlife populations and ecosystems, can threaten human and wildlife health, and can cause extensive economic losses. Despite these negative impacts, the United States does not currently require that animal species being imported first be examined (or “screened”) for invasiveness.

In 2007, Defenders of Wildlife conducted an analysis of the legal trade in live animals into the United States, threats associated with this trade, and the current framework to prevent such threats. The final report revealed that 13% of the nonnative species we imported legally over a 5-year period were “potentially risky” to animal, human and ecosystem health. Acting now to prevent further imports of harmful nonnative species should be considered a conservation priority.

The NWIPA provides the Secretary of the Interior with the statutory authority and guidelines to design and implement a risk assessment process to evaluate nonnative wildlife species prior to import for their potential to cause the aforementioned negative impacts. The assessment would result in a list of approved and a list of unapproved nonnative wildlife species for import, based on the best available data on the potential risks of these species. The Secretary would also have the ability to place a harmful nonnative wildlife species on the unapproved list in the event of an emergency.

The risk assessment process applies to all imported animals, whether the species has been in trade in the past or not. It entails provisions to ensure individuals that their current ownership of pets, hobby fish, and so on is not threatened; to ensure businesses that the screening process will be fair and timely; and to ensure the public and stakeholders that the process will be science-based and fully transparent. Animals included on the unapproved list can be imported with a permit for educational, scientific research, or accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes. In addition, the Secretary would accept petitions to remove species from the unapproved list.

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act was introduced in the House in June 2008 by Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL), and Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN).

First off, national law for invasiveness?
Notice where the food industry lies in paragraph #2 right AFTER pet industry and aquarium.
Notice they tried to quell pet owners when they found out what our real #`s are by saying there are provisions for pet owners. Reassessing animals already here in #`s that haven`t caused a problem? This was from 2007 when only one from the tilapia industry attended the meeting for this bill while the pet industry had 2-3 reps and a letter campaign that was bigger then anyone could remember. Yet they can name zoos research and educational but can`t name pet owners, food industry etc? They probably figured they`d get less resistance if they said this one was aimed at the food industry

Don`t fool yourself, if they had their way no one would own pets other then the fuzzy furry ones. And there is a lot more on their website that would lead you to believe that this organization would like to outlaw the pet trade.




Ed said:


> Off-topic and my last comment on it..
> 
> While it may feel personal, it isn't personal unless a person is specifically named simply because you are also being swept up in a huge net does not mean it is personal or even targeted specifically at a specific person. The main target for the bill is the massive amount of frogs imported into and transhipped through the country (or even back out of the country) for the food trade. The pet trade is included is because it can't be excluded as part of a prerule.
> 
> The rest is on topic and I will comment on it further if needed...
> 
> There is nothing in the prerule that states permits will or won't be available. It is a prerule. To assume anything else is making false assumptions. That has to be determined during and post the comment period.
> 
> People are again making assumptions on the final rule based on the prerule language.. A lot of the distribution data for chytrid wasn't available when the petition was made and in any case the position that its worthless for chytrid does't take into account other pathogens that are coming into the country.


----------



## Tony

frogfarm said:


> Don`t fool yourself, if they had their way no one would own pets other then the fuzzy furry ones.


I wouldn't even count on them being safe from attempted legislation in the long term. It's no secret that the extremist animal rights groups want to outlaw ALL human/animal interaction, whether it be pets, agriculture, hunting, etc.


----------



## Roadrunner

Ed said:


> Off-topic and my last comment on it..
> People are again making assumptions on the final rule based on the prerule language.. A lot of the distribution data for chytrid wasn't available when the petition was made and in any case the position that its worthless for chytrid does't take into account other pathogens that are coming into the country.


I don`t understand this. Where does it say anything about testing for other things than chytrid? Also, thru comments, the fact that chytrid is everywhere may kill the proposal in and of itself?


----------



## Ed

One of the misconceptions that is being assumed in this thread by all the participents (as far as I can tell (and I include myself)) is that there is only one form of chytrid. This is not true, if I remember correctly there are at least 7 (and maybe 13) different isolates with different levels of mortality (much like the difference between Ebola Sudan, Ebola Zaire and Ebola Reston). 

I suggest people read through http://www.puce.edu.ec/zoologia/vertebrados/publicaciones/SchloegelEtAl2009.pdf 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems

Has this been published my US Fish and Wildlife? If so where?


----------



## Tony

JJuchems said:


> Has this been published my US Fish and Wildlife? If so where?


No, they have given notice of intent to publish in the near future.


----------



## Ed

JJuchems said:


> Has this been published my US Fish and Wildlife? If so where?


Hi Jason,

Here is the prerule notice on USF&W website 
View Rule 

and language from thier site 

RIN Data 
DOI/FWS RIN: 1018-AX05 Publication ID: Spring 2010 
Title: ¤Injurious Wildlife Evaluation; Amphibian Trade and Chytrid Fungus 
Abstract: We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus). The importation and introduction of live amphibians infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources. For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. 
Agency: Department of the Interior(DOI) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant 
RIN Status: First time published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Prerule Stage 
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No 
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 16 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.) 
Legal Authority: 18 USC 42 
Legal Deadline: Action Source Description Date 
Final Judicial Final decision. 11/02/2010 

Timetable: Action Date FR Cite 
ANPRM 04/00/2010 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined 
Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No 
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No 
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No 
Agency Contact: 
Susan Jewell 
Biologist 
Department of the Interior 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
4401 N. Fairfax Drive , MS 770, 
Arlington, VA 22203 
Phone:703 358-2416 
Fax:703 358-2487 
Email: [email protected]


----------



## SmackoftheGods

Ed said:


> Agency Contact:
> Susan Jewell
> Biologist
> Department of the Interior
> United States Fish and Wildlife Service
> 4401 N. Fairfax Drive , MS 770,
> Arlington, VA 22203
> Phone:703 358-2416
> Fax:703 358-2487
> Email: [email protected]


Thank you for this. We now have the name of someone we can contact.... In the interest of all, be polite if you contact her, being belligerent will be counterproductive.


----------



## Roadrunner

Ed said:


> Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No


Anyone understand what this means?


----------



## Ed

That they currently don't have any hard data that it will significantly impact small businesses. That is part of the information that needs to come out during the comment period. 

Ed


----------



## Julio

well, this will be pretty hard on all the vendors that won't be allowed to ship frogs if it goes through, Even hobbyist that are cutting down their collections.


----------



## Roadrunner

What a crock, they know darn well it will affect them as it`s aimed at them. Is this further underhandedness as if the business never find out about it they can sneak it thru? Since they did the data research they even have the #`s of how many business` it will affect, or at least a revenue estimate.



Ed said:


> That they currently don't have any hard data that it will significantly impact small businesses. That is part of the information that needs to come out during the comment period.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> Since they did the data research they even have the #`s of how many business` it will affect, or at least a revenue estimate.


 Aaron, Where did you get that information? 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

Ed said:


> Aaron, Where did you get that information?
> 
> Ed


I think it was this one

http://www.defenders.org/resources/...tion/broken_screens/broken_screens_report.pdf

But it may have been another link from this page

Broken Screens: The Regulation of Live Animal Imports in the United States - Defenders of Wildlife

But they`ve obviously done their research. And they cite the pet industry as the largest importer.


----------



## michaelslenahan

I think it is supposed to be read:

Small entities affected: Businesses

Government levels affected: Undetermined

Federalism: No

In which case this recognizes *that small businesses are going to be affected*, does not yet know which government levels will be affected but that the entire government (federal and state) will not be affected.


----------



## Roadrunner

That makes sense.


michaelslenahan said:


> I think it is supposed to be read:
> 
> Small entities affected: Businesses
> 
> Government levels affected: Undetermined
> 
> Federalism: No
> 
> In which case this recognizes *that small businesses are going to be affected*, does not yet know which government levels will be affected but that the entire government (federal and state) will not be affected.


----------



## michaelslenahan

I have to make one more comment--I perform royalty reviews as part of a consulting team where we have to interpret contracts and legal proceedings on a daily basis. I'm very familiar with how they can be construed by different people.

I'm going to cut and paste the abstract directly from the rule on the Office of Information and Regulatory affairs which you can access from Ed's link above. 

"We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act *unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)*. The importation and introduction of live amphibians infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources. *For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit.* Permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes."

I'm not going to argue what their original intention is--I'm just going to show how this can be interpreted should it pass. (And how you could have an attorney defend your collection)

1) If the animal does not have Bd, it does not require a permit for interstate transportation. If your amphibian (or eggs) are tested and they do not have Bd, you do not have to get a permit.

2) If an animal is tested and found positive with Bd, you cannot transport it into or out of the country or across state boundaries without a permit. Meaning, even if it does have Bd, you can still transport it as long as you have a proper permit. I don't know anyone in this hobby who would knowingly transport a frog with Bd to someone else. 

3) If the amphibian has Bd, the abstract only prohibits its transportation, it does not require its extermination (now we only have the abstract and this may change when the rule is released). If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd, but you can't transport them into/out of state or country. An acceptable solution could be treatment/cure. An amphibian that has Bd cannot be transported, but one that doesn't have Bd can be transported. A frog that had Bd but no longer has Bd could be transported as well.

Again, I'm only stating how this could be interpreted--but as long as you have an interpretation, you have a legal defense.

My thoughts,


----------



## Boondoggle

michaelslenahan said:


> 1) If the animal does not have Bd, it does not require a permit for interstate transportation. If your amphibian (or eggs) are tested and they do not have Bd, you do not have to get a permit.
> 
> 2) If an animal is tested and found positive with Bd, you cannot transport it into or out of the country or across state boundaries without a permit. Meaning, even if it does have Bd, you can still transport it as long as you have a proper permit. I don't know anyone in this hobby who would knowingly transport a frog with Bd to someone else.
> 
> 3) If the amphibian has Bd, the abstract only prohibits its transportation, it does not require its extermination (now we only have the abstract and this may change when the rule is released). If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd, but you can't transport them into/out of state or country. An acceptable solution could be treatment/cure. An amphibian that has Bd cannot be transported, but one that doesn't have Bd can be transported. A frog that had Bd but no longer has Bd could be transported as well.


I've been reading it over this morning and that was my take on it too. I was wondering if I was misinterpreting something or if that was it's original intent.


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> I think it was this one
> 
> http://www.defenders.org/resources/...tion/broken_screens/broken_screens_report.pdf
> 
> But it may have been another link from this page
> 
> Broken Screens: The Regulation of Live Animal Imports in the United States - Defenders of Wildlife
> 
> But they`ve obviously done their research. And they cite the pet industry as the largest importer.


Hi Aaron,

That is the data being used by the group that filed the petition. It does not mean that it is automatically accepted by USF&W as totally valid. USF&W has to act on the petition.. (or be sued to force an action) the outcome of the petition is the prerule hearing which may or may not be used to make a change. That is why the commentary period is important. 
I questioned it because the comment made it appear (at least to me) that USF&W had done an economic assessment. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

michaelslenahan said:


> I have to make one more comment--I perform royalty reviews as part of a consulting team where we have to interpret contracts and legal proceedings on a daily basis. I'm very familiar with how they can be construed by different people.
> 
> I'm going to cut and paste the abstract directly from the rule on the Office of Information and Regulatory affairs which you can access from Ed's link above.
> 
> "We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act *unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)*. The importation and introduction of live amphibians infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources. *For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit.* Permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes."
> 
> I'm not going to argue what their original intention is--I'm just going to show how this can be interpreted should it pass. (And how you could have an attorney defend your collection)
> 
> 1) If the animal does not have Bd, it does not require a permit for interstate transportation. If your amphibian (or eggs) are tested and they do not have Bd, you do not have to get a permit.
> 
> 2) If an animal is tested and found positive with Bd, you cannot transport it into or out of the country or across state boundaries without a permit. Meaning, even if it does have Bd, you can still transport it as long as you have a proper permit. I don't know anyone in this hobby who would knowingly transport a frog with Bd to someone else.
> 
> 3) If the amphibian has Bd, the abstract only prohibits its transportation, it does not require its extermination (now we only have the abstract and this may change when the rule is released). If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd, but you can't transport them into/out of state or country. An acceptable solution could be treatment/cure. An amphibian that has Bd cannot be transported, but one that doesn't have Bd can be transported. A frog that had Bd but no longer has Bd could be transported as well.
> 
> Again, I'm only stating how this could be interpreted--but as long as you have an interpretation, you have a legal defense.
> 
> My thoughts,


Thanks Michael


----------



## Roadrunner

Oh, I see. I meant dow would have or could get the info thru freedom of information act to add, but I think I read it wrong and it stated small business would be affected. 



Ed said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> That is the data being used by the group that filed the petition. It does not mean that it is automatically accepted by USF&W as totally valid. USF&W has to act on the petition.. (or be sued to force an action) the outcome of the petition is the prerule hearing which may or may not be used to make a change. That is why the commentary period is important.
> I questioned it because the comment made it appear (at least to me) that USF&W had done an economic assessment.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

Even though Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) is considered to be an animal welfare organization, I believe DOW is leaning more in the direction of radical animal rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The "Broken Screens" reports that DOW puts out, while looking impressive, are nothing more than propaganda for the animal rights movement, and are not scientifically reviewed.

"Broken Screens, the report which is the basis for the writing of H.R. 669, is not a science based document. It is a propaganda piece produced by a radical environmentalist group in league with the Animal Rights Movement." Source: United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK).

Until the animal rights movement realizes its objectives, which include the elimination of all pets, it will seize upon any opportunity it has to eliminate any group of animals which are being kept as pets. The first group of pets to go were primates and exotic cats. Now, these same animal rights groups are focusing on other animals, such as reptiles and frogs.

As has been pointed out on this thread, prohibiting the keeping of frogs will do nothing to stop the spread of Chytrid Fungus, however, given the media attention recently to this devastating disease, using Chytrid Fungus as the rationale for eliminating the keeping of frogs as pets makes great propaganda for the animal rights movement.


----------



## npaull

> Permits could be issued for scientific, medical, educational or zoological purposes.



As a minor aside, this wording immediately brings to mind restrictions on selling baby turtles under 4" carapace length.

And we all know how well THAT gets enforced...


----------



## Ed

you mean like 
700 Illegal Turtles Confiscated, 1K More Turned In: Pet News 

Animal Sweep Nets Arrests Around Santee Alley :: blogdowntown

Ed


----------



## SmackoftheGods

michaelslenahan said:


> 1) If the animal does not have Bd, it does not require a permit for interstate transportation. If your amphibian (or eggs) are tested and they do not have Bd, you do not have to get a permit.
> 
> 2) If an animal is tested and found positive with Bd, you cannot transport it into or out of the country or across state boundaries without a permit. Meaning, even if it does have Bd, you can still transport it as long as you have a proper permit. I don't know anyone in this hobby who would knowingly transport a frog with Bd to someone else.
> 
> 3) If the amphibian has Bd, the abstract only prohibits its transportation, it does not require its extermination (now we only have the abstract and this may change when the rule is released). If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd, but you can't transport them into/out of state or country. An acceptable solution could be treatment/cure. An amphibian that has Bd cannot be transported, but one that doesn't have Bd can be transported. A frog that had Bd but no longer has Bd could be transported as well.
> 
> Again, I'm only stating how this could be interpreted--but as long as you have an interpretation, you have a legal defense.
> 
> My thoughts,


Okay, I can actually see where you're coming from and it makes me feel a _little_ better. 

However, I'm going to disagree with your interpretation on one aspect (as I believe the rest of your interpretations could be read as accurate). "If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd...." It seems to me that this is expressly prohibited in the statement "For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit." Note that in the case that your frogs have chytrid "possession by any means" would be prohibited "without a permit."


----------



## flapjax3000

So despite what may happen, I guess everyone should get their collection tested and treated for Bd. This would be a good first step to help us ensure our collections. We do not know what the outcome might be, but true scientific proof on paper that your frogs are chytrid free can be a strong statement. Perhaps during the comment period our results should be photocopied and attached to our letters. Only of course if results are negative. If positive, treat your frogs! I know this does not include all pathogens, but the law seems to be targeting chytrid specifically. If enough letters are sent in accompanied by scientific proof that there is no chytrid fungus in private collections, then perhaps the DOW argument will lose merit. Worst case scenario is that you will know whether or not your frogs have a condition that can kill them.

Also out of curiosity what evidence is there of chytrid in collections in the European or Japanese collections? I do not know if chytrid has spread throughout Europe or Asia. We all know that there are a lot of frogs in these other countries. Perhaps we could use this as an example if chytrid is not present in their local habitats. 

Ed, since there are multiple types of chytrid, are multiple tests required? Does a chytrid test cover all strains?


----------



## Ed

flapjax3000 said:


> Also out of curiosity what evidence is there of chytrid in collections in the European or Japanese collections? I do not know if chytrid has spread throughout Europe or Asia. We all know that there are a lot of frogs in these other countries. Perhaps we could use this as an example if chytrid is not present in their local habitats.


I can't speak to the presence of absence of chytrid in European and Asian amphibian collections other to say that it is highly probable given that I am I aware of it infection at least one zoo collection (personal communication) and anecdotally reported in several individual collections. 
However I can say that chytrid is endemic in those regions (and the following paper describing the import of live amphibians has found chytrid in amphibians from Asian http://www.puce.edu.ec/zoologia/vertebrados/publicaciones/SchloegelEtAl2009.pdf ). This is an earlier paper on the distribution in Europe Chytrid Fungus in Europe | CDC EID

bullfrogs as global carriers (including Europe) and http://www-lbtest.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/daszak-2004b.pdf

The emerging amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis globally infects introduced populations of the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana ? Biology Letters (however other papers have found it in populations of bullfrogs in Canada)





flapjax3000 said:


> Ed, since there are multiple types of chytrid, are multiple tests required? Does a chytrid test cover all strains?


As I understand it the single pcr test works on all of the strains. 

Ed


----------



## flapjax3000

Thanks Ed,

I figured that chytrid had spread in those countries, but did not have any papers to back it up ( I miss my access to J-STOR).

Anyway we still need to get our amphibians tested for chytrid. A pile of papers with results showing that we do not have Bd in our collections can pack a punch.


----------



## Roadrunner

Well, if that`s the case we`ll have to see what will be required for "certification". Whether facilities would have to pass a round of tests every 6 mos - 1 yr or if every animal shipped or transported would have to be tested individually each time they cross lines, etc.etc. Maybe they did learn something about people and their pets w/ the H.R.669 hearing, I`m still skeptical though.
I`m still calling Supervisor Muhlbauer on monday and seeing what I can find out.


----------



## npaull

> you mean like
> 700 Illegal Turtles Confiscated, 1K More Turned In: Pet News
> 
> Animal Sweep Nets Arrests Around Santee Alley :: blogdowntown
> 
> Ed


Hey Ed,

Thanks for those links. I actually didn't know the law had been enforced on that large a scale. However, the fact remains that many hundreds of hatchling chelonians are available at virtually every major herp expo for essentially anyone to buy. That was my point.


----------



## Tony

SmackoftheGods said:


> Okay, I can actually see where you're coming from and it makes me feel a _little_ better.
> 
> However, I'm going to disagree with your interpretation on one aspect (as I believe the rest of your interpretations could be read as accurate). "If this remains the case, you can have frogs in your collection that have Bd...." It seems to me that this is expressly prohibited in the statement "For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit." Note that in the case that your frogs have chytrid "possession by any means" would be prohibited "without a permit."


Possession in this case is referring to overseas territiories of the US, not the act of possessing an object.


----------



## Ed

npaull said:


> Hey Ed,
> 
> Thanks for those links. I actually didn't know the law had been enforced on that large a scale. However, the fact remains that many hundreds of hatchling chelonians are available at virtually every major herp expo for essentially anyone to buy. That was my point.


The turtle law(s) needs to be viewed a little differently as exceptions were written into it for hobbyists to exchange animals and that in that specific law, the exhibition definition was also left undefined allowing people to purchase them for exhibition purposes... 
Technically to be totally compliant with the legislation, each purchaser needs to state that they are not aquiring the turtle for a pet (somewhere in a health department archives there are actually pictures of me selling baby turtles when I worked in the pet trade and the store was investigated by the feds for it), a waiver works best.. so it is a little different (and they are cracking down on a venues all over the country for selling baby turtles)...

Ed


----------



## Ed

Tony said:


> Possession in this case is referring to overseas territiories of the US, not the act of possessing an object.


I'm not sure I read it that way.. the language looks to read that possession of a chytrid positive amphibian or eggs would be illegal without permits. That may be something that will be made clear with the final rule.. 

Ed


----------



## michaelslenahan

Tony, I read it the same way you did; the comma placement (or lack thereof) between "US territory" and "or possession by any means," makes a big difference grammatically. 



Ed said:


> I'm not sure I read it that way.. the language looks to read that possession of a chytrid positive amphibian or eggs would be illegal without permits. That may be something that will be made clear with the final rule..
> 
> Ed


And you may be right, but I would argue that "possession" in this context is referring to any other US domain outside of the other specified terms e.g. an overseas military installation or ship at sea. 

If the rule is not any clearer than this abstract, both positions are reasonable.


----------



## Tony

Here are a list of US possessions from the good ol' IRS:



> U.S. possessions are islands owned by the United States, which are not States of the United States. U.S. possessions can be divided into two groups:
> 
> 1. Those that have their own governments and their own tax systems (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and
> 2. Those that do not have their own governments and their own tax systems (Midway Island, Wake Island, Palmyra Island, Howland Island, Johnston Island, Baker Island, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, and other U.S. islands, cays, and reefs that are not part of any of the fifty states).


The rule makes much more sense with "possession" being in this context.


----------



## Ed

This explains the process a fairly well 

http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf


----------



## michaelslenahan

Ed said:


> This explains the process a fairly well
> 
> http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf


Excellent find. Thanks Ed.

"Possession of a species, within State boundaries, is also the responsibility of each State and is not regulated by an injurious wildlife listing."


----------



## skylsdale

TWI is conducting a handy-dandy little survey and study regarding the possible presence (or possible lack thereof) of chytrid in captive Dendrobatid collections that could help inform this issue. However, if we don't have any results to contribute by the time the public comment period ends, that information/data cannot be submitted for consideration. Having results in a timely manner would depend largely upon participants sending their kits back in so we can get the swabs to the lab. [Yup, that was a shameless plug.]


----------



## earthfrog

skylsdale said:


> TWI is conducting a handy-dandy little survey and study regarding the possible presence (or possible lack thereof) of chytrid in captive Dendrobatid collections that could help inform this issue. However, if we don't have any results to contribute by the time the public comment period ends, that information/data cannot be submitted for consideration. Having results in a timely manner would depend largely upon participants sending their kits back in so we can get the swabs to the lab. [Yup, that was a shameless plug.]


If other participants don't pan out, would samples be considered for processing on a case-by-case basis for those of us who submitted them? That is---can one pay to have their own sample processed or mailed back so they can submit it for testing themselves?


----------



## skylsdale

earthfrog said:


> If other participants don't pan out, would samples be considered for processing on a case-by-case basis for those of us who submitted them? That is---can one pay to have their own sample processed or mailed back so they can submit it for testing themselves?


From what I understand, the kits are analyzed in batches and that is how we are being charged...so for the sake of this study, it is not feasible to just send one kit in ahead of time.

TWI has been receiving quite a bit of encouragement from folks in the amphibian conservation realm the last few days (given this proposed rule change) to have the kits analyzed and results received ASAP so they can be submitted when the public comment session opens. Our ability to provide this information, however, relies solely upon participants sending in their kits in an extremely fast manner. If we wait too long, we will miss our window and opportunity to submit accurate and scientifically sound data.


----------



## Tony

If I could get a kit I would be more than happy to do the swabs and get it back out the next day...


----------



## skylsdale

Sounds good, Tony. Contact our ASN Director Mike Khadavi for a kit: mkhadavi[at]treewalkers[dot]org


----------



## Tony

skylsdale said:


> Sounds good, Tony. Contact our ASN Director Mike Khadavi for a kit: mkhadavi[at]treewalkers[dot]org


I did, quite a while ago. He said I had to wait for people to return unused kits.


----------



## thedude

skylsdale said:


> Sounds good, Tony. Contact our ASN Director Mike Khadavi for a kit: mkhadavi[at]treewalkers[dot]org


ron, ive been waiting quite a while now. i was told a few times about when they would be sent but they never did. not saying its your fault or mikes by the way.

either way im still very interested in receiving one.


----------



## kristy55303

i'm incredibly disappointed in those that signed up that couldn't get them in when they posted a warning deadline. i dont know if you realize the time, dedication, and $$ such as stamps, kits etc that went into "trying" to make this a possible successful survey. I admit I didnt get mine in till last minute deadline but..... that was all we needed was that deadline. and it didnt seem to matter? :/ please people get your kits in. there is a lot going on with laws/banning and we also need to allow the ASN/TWI network get their results complied for the survey and research. It took me like 5 minutes to do all the tests. all us that have turned them in have been waiting on those of you that haven't and so has the asn/TWI network unfairly waiting they have done. just my honest opinion.

p.s. not directed at you adam lol at the original participants that havent turned in test kits. get them in guys! adam thanks for signing up, hope you get a kit soon as i know we need them!


----------



## nathan

If I got a kit tomorrow(mon) it would be back in the mail tuesday. I would be interested in participating in the next group asap!


----------



## skylsdale

This will put a damper on the various conspiracy theories forming, amphibian death panels and whatnot...but for those interested: http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/US_amphibian_trade_proposal.pdf


----------



## thedude

skylsdale said:


> This will put a damper on the various conspiracy theories forming, amphibian death panels and whatnot...but for those interested: http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/US_amphibian_trade_proposal.pdf


thanks ron, very informal. everyone who has commented on here should read it.


----------



## james67

i read it and it doesnt change the fact that im defensive about any proposed change.

james


----------



## Tony

james67 said:


> i read it and it doesnt change the fact that im defensive about any proposed change.
> 
> james


Agreed. Exotic animal laws don't exactly have a history of being reasonable and restrained...


----------



## skylsdale

That's fine, but people need to keep in mind what is actually happening here: 

A group submitted a petition for there to be a rule change. The government body to whom the petition was submitted has decided to open a period of comment to hear what the public-at-large thinks of the change proposed by the group. So far, that's it.

By all means, those interested in commenting should do so in a respectful and constructive manner when the comment period begins...but storming the proverbial gates with torches and pitchforks in hand isn't actually going to help curb any proposed change and will most likely be sifted out of consideration.


----------



## Web Wheeler

skylsdale said:


> This will put a damper on the various conspiracy theories forming, amphibian death panels and whatnot...but for those interested: http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/US_amphibian_trade_proposal.pdf


It doesn't matter what Amphibian Ark says. Here's why...



> Abstract: We are reviewing a petition to *add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)*. The importation and introduction of live amphibians infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources. For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, *an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession* by any means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes.
> 
> Source: View Rule Change


I've emphasized the most important aspects of this rule change in bold. Let's analyse what the bold parts mean to amphibian hobbyists: 

1. "add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act" means 2. "an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession"

Something is missing... ah yes, "unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)".

This raises a lot of questions: 1. Who qualifies for certification? 2. Who will perform the certification? 3. How will the certification be conducted? 4. How much will it cost? 5. How long will it take? 6. How often does it have to be done? 7. Where will the certification take place?

Does anyone know the answers to these questions? The answers to these questions could have an extremely negative impact on the amphibian hobby.

Stay alert - Be aware!


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> Does anyone know the answers to these questions? The answers to these questions could have an extremely negative impact on the amphibian hobby.


That is what the comment period is supposed to clear up and determine. We don't know the answers to those questions yet because not only has it not been decided but, *USF&W has not been provided with comments or any other form of input to make a change as of yet*. USF&W is legally obligated to open a comment period because of the petition, that is all they have announced or decided upon so far. 

The comment period hasn't even been scheduled to open up for comments the last I checked (only a day or two back). 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

I think he was being facetious Ed, about anyone knowing what the protocol would be. I also think he was being worried w/ the slew of different legislation either passed or suggested to ban pets around the country. Personally, I don`t think his worries are unfounded. I understand this is just a question period but the legislation proposed could have very detrimental affects to the trade. I think everyone also understands that F+W is only fulfilling their obligation to a Q+A period and has nothing to do w/ the actual proposal of the bill until they hear the comments. We all know these orgs use tactics to "ban" things by the wording of the proposed law. Not an outright ban of amphibs but a ban by restrictive testing and hi cost permits, making it impossible to keep up w/ and risking violating a fed law if you don`t. 



Ed said:


> That is what the comment period is supposed to clear up and determine. We don't know the answers to those questions yet because not only has it not been decided but, *USF&W has not been provided with comments or any other form of input to make a change as of yet*. USF&W is legally obligated to open a comment period because of the petition, that is all they have announced or decided upon so far.
> 
> The comment period hasn't even been scheduled to open up for comments the last I checked (only a day or two back).
> 
> Ed


----------



## skylsdale

I think it's important to remember that USFWS isn't coming up with this ban...but they have received a petition from a seperate special interest group (which has already been mentioned in this thread) and are, from what I understand, simply describing what this group has proposed should happen. 

I'm repeating this as I don't think many people really understand what is going on and what initially prompted this whole thing.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Web Wheeler said:


> Something is missing... ah yes, "unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)".
> 
> This raises a lot of questions: 1. Who qualifies for certification? 2. Who will perform the certification? 3. How will the certification be conducted? 4. How much will it cost? 5. How long will it take? 6. How often does it have to be done? 7. Where will the certification take place?
> 
> Does anyone know the answers to these questions? The answers to these questions could have an extremely negative impact on the amphibian hobby.
> 
> Stay alert - Be aware!


Actually, I was not being facetious. The above questions need answers, and I don't believe we'll get them during the public comment period because there is no USF&WS response to public comments during this time. The purpose of public comments is to provide the USF&WS with additional information that pertains to the proposed rule change. Source: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/Injurious_Wildlife_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdf

I have emailed Susan Jewell, Biologist, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service with my questions and will post her reply when it is recieved.


----------



## Ed

You aren't going to get those questions answered because the comment period and resulting process haven't occured yet. They don't have the information to answer those questions as of yet. 

The petition and comment period are going to happen as it is required to happen in response to the petition. 

The comment period is to address the petition that was filed by the group listed above which requested those changes. There is no requirement for USF&W to enact the "wording" in the prerule proposal or to even keep any of that wording intact. That is what the comment period is used to resolve. 

If this prerule is such as huge issue at this second then why can't I find anything on it on the USARK website? 

Ed


----------



## Tony

Ed said:


> If this prerule is such as huge issue at this second then why can't I find anything on it on the USARK website?


Probably because they are more concerned with the snake ban.


----------



## Ed

Hi Tony,

Except they go into depth on the frog and turtle regulations for California and a number of other state "bans" in just as much depth.... it isn't all about the snake ban there, but for some reason this prerule isn't flagged there as even up and coming... 

Ed


----------



## Catfur

Tony said:


> Probably because they are more concerned with the snake ban.


Maybe because there is not even a timeline for a public comment period yet?


----------



## Michael Shrom

I heard Sunday that the comment period for the snake ban has been extended for 1 month. Their is no proposal being made for the chytrid inspection at this time. I was told by a Juris doctoral candidate that if the chytrid inspection for amphibians is proposed the comment period will probably start around November.

We need to be vigilant in watching this issue but their is not much we can do before a proposal is made and the comment period starts. The sky is not falling but we need to think about what we are going to do when the sky starts falling.


----------



## Catfur

Michael Shrom said:


> We need to be vigilant in watching this issue but their is not much we can do before a proposal is made and the comment period starts. The sky is not falling but we need to think about what we are going to do when the sky starts falling.


Sky is already falling in California & New Mexico (and has already smashed into the ground in places like CT).


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

Catfur said:


> Sky is already falling in California & New Mexico (and has already smashed into the ground in places like CT).


Yes it has.

John


----------



## frogface

Would it be worthwhile for you experience people to give us an outline for what we could write to the appropriate people? I would love to get involved and help but I don't have the knowledge to make any sort of argument. I'm probably not alone in this.


----------



## Web Wheeler

frogface said:


> Would it be worthwhile for you experience people to give us an outline for what we could write to the appropriate people? I would love to get involved and help but I don't have the knowledge to make any sort of argument. I'm probably not alone in this.


Here you are: Reptile Nation News and in particular Fast & Easy Comment on Rule Change.

This is what USARK is doing about the snake ban. The process will be similar for the amphibian ban.


----------



## frogface

That's great, thanks.

If there is anything specific to amphibians and/or Dart Frogs that we can add, please advise.


----------



## Web Wheeler

frogface said:


> That's great, thanks.
> 
> If there is anything specific to amphibians and/or Dart Frogs that we can add, please advise.


Let's not get confused. The snake ban and the amphibian ban are two different issues.

You best wait until USARK issues an alert for amphibians before sending any comments (when the comment period opens).

In the meantime, call awareness to this issue as much as you can, in as many places as you can, and encourage everyone to join USARK.

Finally, Stay alert - Be aware!


----------



## frogface

Oh, I see. So it would be premature to rattle cages with letter writing at this point. I'll sit back and watch.


----------



## sports_doc

> parc members and friends:
> 
> 
> Via our many colleagues and partners, we understand that there are rumors regarding a possible ban on trade in amphibians in the united states. *we want to assure you that this is not the case;* there will be a public comment period sometime soon regarding a petition the us fish and wildlife service received to designate amphibians in trade as "injurious" unless they are determined to be free of the amphibian chytrid fungus, a major cause for amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide.
> Such a provision already exists for salmonid fish, not to ban their trade but simply to help protect wild (and existing captive) fish from exposure to diseases. This petition aims to do the same for frogs.
> No requirements or specific measures have been set forth yet, but may mean that amphibian shipments would have to be tested for disease prior to shipment.
> 
> 
> *our friends at amphibian ark have prepared a very nice, more detailed summary *of the facts, implications, and opportunities for you to comment on the petition. Please read more at
> http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/us_amphibian_trade_proposal.pdfhttp://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/us_amphibian_trade_proposal.pdf
> 
> 
> thanks, and please share this with friends and colleagues!
> 
> 
> Parc administrators


.
.
.
.

.


----------



## billschwinn

It might not be a bad idea to help the snake people in their efforts especially if you would like their support in the frog cause, after all it seems like the real goals our opponets want is no exotic pet ownership, something one should really consider, Bill


----------



## frogface

billschwinn said:


> It might not be a bad idea to help the snake people in their efforts especially if you would like their support in the frog cause, after all it seems like the real goals our opponets want is no exotic pet ownership, something one should really consider, Bill


I agree and will be taking the time to learn more about it.


"...THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

-Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller


----------



## nathan

billschwinn said:


> It might not be a bad idea to help the snake people in their efforts especially if you would like their support in the frog cause, after all it seems like the real goals our opponets want is no exotic pet ownership, something one should really consider, Bill


I agree !!!!

I have already signed petitions and mailed letters to my senator/house of rep . . . And have recieved letters back from both.

Helping one helps us all . . . .


----------



## garweft

billschwinn said:


> It might not be a bad idea to help the snake people in their efforts especially if you would like their support in the frog cause, after all it seems like the real goals our opponets want is no exotic pet ownership, something one should really consider, Bill


I was going to say the same thing. You can start your fight now by posting a comment on the proposed rule change for Boas and Pythons. If that get's shot down the injurious wildlife route will not look as easy as it does to special interest groups.

Right know it seems to be there road of choice to try to put an end to the trade in reptiles and amphibians. HSUS has been trying to end it for decades, this is nothing new. And as we can see now, if one thing get's thru 20 more will follow. Just like the snake hobbyist have been saying.


----------



## Tweaver

Does anyone know what data they are basing this proposed regulation on? Is there any published data out there that can say that amphibian diseases have been spread in North America from imported introduced species (Besides that Clawed Frog pregnancy test fiasco back in the 1960's). Is this regulation proposed from data or is it based on preventative measures. I know the study that was published on the Python Ban had Burmese Pythons introduced and surviving in southern Nebraska within the next 20 years. In order to fight this i would like to know how they are justifying this regulation. Also, does this mean I can get a permit by bullfrog tadpoles and have them sent to me to use in a classroom for educational purposes. then release them when the class is over????


----------



## Ed

Tweaver said:


> Does anyone know what data they are basing this proposed regulation on? Is there any published data out there that can say that amphibian diseases have been spread in North America from imported introduced species (Besides that Clawed Frog pregnancy test fiasco back in the 1960's). Is this regulation proposed from data or is it based on preventative measures. I know the study that was published on the Python Ban had Burmese Pythons introduced and surviving in southern Nebraska within the next 20 years. In order to fight this i would like to know how they are justifying this regulation. Also, does this mean I can get a permit by bullfrog tadpoles and have them sent to me to use in a classroom for educational purposes. then release them when the class is over????


Unlike the study initually used by USGS with respect to the proposed interstate transport of those constrictors there is a lot of evidence that imported amphibians are bringing chytrid into the country (for example a repeat of a paper I posted above http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=783c0a5aa4a09cf4b983f21d391833c6 )

Of the real concerns is that there are multiple strains of chytrid (of which not all are established in the US as of yet) that demonstrate variations in lethality. 

For more information I suggest the following (a small selection from a much more extensive body of literature..) 


http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/fisher-2007.pdf 

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/kriger-2007.pdf

http://www.savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Kriger-2009-Future-Panzootics.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2009/special/fungus/fungpp7.pdf

http://www.savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Garner-2009-Reply-to-Kriger.pdf

There is a significant difference in the amount of information, the way the research was conducted and the results than that badly flawed paper used for the burmese ban proposal. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

A typical ploy used by animal rights organizations is to lump the trade of all amphibians together, as if all amphibians are equally responsible for the spread of Chytrid Fungus. Combining Dart Frog data with Bull Frog data is a good example of the use of this tactic.

In reading over the information that Ed provided, I came across the following, which should be used in our defence:



> Trade and transport of amphibians by zoos also is set to increase in direct response to the emergence of Bd. The AmphibianConservation Action Plan (ACAP, http://amphibia web.org/declines/acap.pdf) specifically calls for captive breeding programs targeted at species that are at high risk of extinction in the wild due to chytridiomycosis, habitat destruction, and other threats. In response to this call, the Amphibian Ark was formed tomobilize zoos internationally to develop ex situ captive breeding programmes. It is generally recognized that captive breedingwithin native species ranges is, to a large extent, logistically impossible to implement, maintain, and biosecure. Instead, regional centers are required that, as with Xenopus, concentrate captive breeding capacity, which is a fundamental component of the Amphibian Ark program. We agree that quarantine procedures need to be set in place, becausemany species coming into these breeding programs are or will be affected by infectious diseases, and those already present in zoos are at risk of cross-infection if biosecurity is not maintained (Walker et al., 2008). However, most accredited zoos have such procedures in place, although there is a need to upgrade and standardize. As well, synergies amongst components of the amphibian trade may actually benefit this global conservation effort. *Many species in the pet trade are closely related both phylogenetically and ecologically to important target conservation species. These species can be used to train staff at regional centers so that when target species are brought into captivity the likelihood of successful ex situ programs will improve. In cases where target species are in the pet trade, they may prove to be the best or only source of breeding stock. This is no small beer; most zoos have far better developed reptile husbandry and very few institutions boast of breeders and keepers who are specialized in amphibian care, health, and reproduction. Some zoos are already using amphibians purchased from the private sector to develop the skills necessary to implement the Amphibian Ark plans. From a conservation perspective, this is not the time to alienate the pet trade sector, which may be the most useful repository of captive breeding and husbandry know-how and arguably has the greatest success rate at breeding rare, difficult to keep, and difficult to breed species.
> 
> Given that the amphibian trade is already enormous in the United States, Asia, and Europe (Schlaepfer et al., 2005; Tyler et al., 2007) and the pet trade is rapidly emerging in Asia (Rowley et al., 2007), blanket bans and radical restrictions are going to be impossible to implement. Imposing trade restrictions will require substantial time and effort with no guarantee of success and may result in a substantial increase in unregulated trade. The better and more rapid option is to regulate trade for the control of the spread of infectious disease. Strategies for this are in place in most countries and should easily be modified for amphibians.* For example, on Dominica, agricultural trade has already been modified to reduce the risk of transporting amphibians passively around the Lesser Antilles. Toward this, the Aquatic Animal Health Code of the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, or the OIE) has been amended this year to include both Bd and ranavirus and now includes recommendations for certifying disease status of countries and amphibian products. By using the WOAH guidelines, we believe that the risk of disease transport will be, to a great extent, eliminated. For certain cases (e.g., Madagascar), more stringent restrictions may be put in place. Along with trade regulations, we need to educate stakeholders in the amphibian trade about the risk of pathogens to wild populations and to their livelihoods. *Many amphibian traders, notably those in the pet trade, currently feel alienated from zoos and the scientific community but would welcome the opportunity to increase their knowledge of infectious diseases and implement better practices. Our research has shown pet traders in the United Kingdom feel that there is a lack of available information regarding the risk of amphibian infectious disease; however, the majority of pet shop owners surveyed feel import regulations are not stringent enough!*
> 
> Source:http://www.savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Garner-2009-Reply-to-Kriger.pdf


The emphasis in *bold* is mine.

Stay Alert - Be Aware!


----------



## Web Wheeler

*More Important Info*:



> Due to its recent, and largely simultaneous, recognition as a globally widespread pathogen, chytridiomycosis has been designated an emerging infectious disease (Daszak et al. 2003). Two hypotheses have been advanced to account for the emerging nature of disease caused by Bd; on one hand, the ‘novel pathogen hypothesis’ (NPH) states that Bd has recently spread into new geographic areas, and host species, as a result of the anthropogenically-mediated spread of Bd. On the other hand, the ‘endemic pathogen hypothesis’ (EPH) states that the emergence of chytridiomycosis has been caused by amphibian hosts becoming more susceptible to pre-existing infections as a consequence of changes in the environment.
> 
> The purpose of this review is not to weigh up the evidence for the NPH versus the EPH; this was ably undertaken by Rachowicz et al. (2005). Ours, and other, research show that both hypotheses contribute to explaining the current pandemic. The NPH receives support from the fact that epidemic fronts of introduction have been identified (Lips et al. 2006), that globally-recovered isolates of Bd show little genetic diversity suggestive of a recent expansion from a point-origin (Morehouse et al. 2003) and that infected amphibians are detected in the amphibian trade (Mazzoni et al. 2003; Weldon et al. 2004; Garner et al. 2006). The EPH receives support from data showing that Bd was present in global amphibian populations decades ago [USA 1974; Canada 1961; Australia 1978; South Africa 1938 (Rachowicz et al. 2005)] and that there are measurable associations between amphibian condition (Reading 2006), global warming and the onset of chytridiomycosis (Bosch et al. 2006; Pounds et al. 2006).
> 
> Source: http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/fisher-2007.pdf


*The proposed rule change ignores the Endemic Pathogen Hypothesis (EPH). Keep those links coming, Ed!*

Stay Alert - Be Aware!


----------



## Roadrunner

I just wonder how things will be the same when you have to swab a shipment of 1000 frogs coming into the country and the cost is $15ea. test? Even 100 frogs that have to be individually swabbed before leaving the country would add a considerable cost to exporting frogs, some of which only sell wholesale for $20ea. It may not be an end to the amphibian trade but it`d be an end as we know it. Not to mention the unscrupulous will probably swab the same frog over and over. Anyone think of how many ways there would be to get around the tests. Not to mention it`s 4 months to wait for CITES permits, does anyone think that there are enough PCR machines that it wouldn`t slow or stop anyone from holding on to animals that long before they ship. I see PCR chytrid tests being backlogged for years if this goes thru. And if it does I`m moving from frog breeding to PCR test lab for sure

So how do we think these more detrimental strains are going to get here if they are usually fatal so quickly. How is this test for chytrid going to stop the spread of a disease which is the next chytrid, since there isn`t a test for it yet. 
So, I`ll tell F+W that I`m quite interested in stopping the spread of amphibian disease BECAUSE THEY CAN`T HANDLE NEW DISEASES BECAUSE THEY`VE BEEN HIT SO HARD BY OUR AGRICULTURAL, BUSINESS AND COMMERCE PRACTICES, but this law is not going to do anything about it. People who breed frogs and don`t have a business in it will still ship frogs w/out testing. Then there`ll be no one left transporting frogs except people bypassing the laws. We all see how people shun smuggled frogs so well because of their cheaper price, right! This law will do the exact opposite of what it intends because the people who do the tests will be undersold by those who don`t and those people already check their collection.
For amphibian Ark to put out a statement that nothing will change in the pet trade except a possible test before shipping........C`mon, really? Have you guys thought about what mandatory testing would do to the trade, have you really thought about it? Do any of you really know anything about the business of breeding amphibians? Maybe nothing would change for YOU.


----------



## james67

i totally agree aaron. one of the most common reasons i see people back out of deals or loose interest is their surprise when they see that its $50-$60 to ship (not using USPS) what will they say when shipping is $80 because the frogs have to be tested?

james


----------



## billschwinn

I think Aaron explained the common sense of this scenario very well.


----------



## Ed

This is still all speculation. We don't know if 
1) it will pass
2) if they will require swabbing each frog individually or whether or not it will require a group swabbing
3) if it will be by shipment or a person's collection/facility can be certified chytrid free on some (annuallly, biannually etc) routine basis
4) the increased demand will speed up the turn around time for the tests (the current time lag is because they usually need x number of tests to perform the run to make it cost effective)
5) it will pass

We are in the prerule stage and USF&W hasn't opened the comment period, once the comment period opens up we will be able to add our input and see where we can go with it. 

With the hypothetical discussion on the cost and impact, if it (hypothetically passes) if you want frogs from another state or from out of country then you either pay the additional costs (as part of the price of the frogs) or you don't get the frogs or you risk getting caught illegally trafficing wildlife with the potential following minimal penalties (see http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/lacey.html ) of $100,000 for shipments with a value of less than $350 (for individuals) and $200,000 for companies (not including potential jail time) and for shipments with a value over $350 the fines significantly increase ($250,000 for individuals..) . That is up to the individual to risk (and note, it would affect both the shipper and the purchaser..) 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Still, Once the first law or codes are in place they will push it until it ends our hobby and even some peoples way of a living! It never ends with one law. 
Michael


----------



## Ed

I get the feeling you are assuming the rule will be implemented without any changes to the language. 

To quote Mike Shrom from above "the sky is not falling". 

*Even if the worst case scenario comes to pass and the language is added as currently written, this language does not affect the ownership or transfer of untested or postive amphibians within a state*. *That is beyond the ability of the regulations in the Lacey act. * I posted the link documenting this in the thread above. 

It is too soon to be speculating on the death of the hobby (highly unlikely), instead people should be waiting for the comment period to open up so they can submit thier information. Comments sent to USF&W now are probably not going to be entered into the comments as USF&W is under no obligation to save the comments until the comment period (nor is any other goverment official at this time) opens. People can get organized and ready for the comment period but they should not be sending comments now and thinking that those comments are making a difference because until the comment period opens, the comments don't have any effect. 

The comment period has to happen as it is required because of the filed petition, we have to wait for the next step and give the feedback and work from that point. 

Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Ed said:


> I get the feeling you are assuming the rule will be implemented without any changes to the language.
> 
> To quote Mike Shrom from above "the sky is not falling".
> 
> *Even if the worst case scenario comes to pass and the language is added as currently written, this language does not affect the ownership or transfer of untested or postive amphibians within a state*. *That is beyond the ability of the regulations in the Lacey act. * I posted the link documenting this in the thread above.
> 
> You see that could be the end of this hobby for some of us. I happen to live in Ga and there are only a handfull of us here so unless we go out and quickly buy up every dart species in which we want its going to be slim pickens around here.
> I can only imagine the even less populated states.
> Maybe we should all just pick a state and move the entire hobby there?
> That would surely tick them off.
> Michael


----------



## Ed

poison beauties said:


> You see that could be the end of this hobby for some of us. I happen to live in Ga and there are only a handfull of us here so unless we go out and quickly buy up every dart species in which we want its going to be slim pickens around here.
> I can only imagine the even less populated states.
> Maybe we should all just pick a state and move the entire hobby there?
> That would surely tick them off.
> Michael



Actually no, I don't see it as the end of the hobby as in the worst case scenario you could still conduct interstate sales/transport of amphibians that were tested for and found negative for chytrid. The worst case scenario only prohibits import or interstate transport of untested or positive amphibians without a permit.


Ed


----------



## poison beauties

Ed said:


> Actually no, I don't see it as the end of the hobby as in the worst case scenario you could still conduct interstate sales/transport of amphibians that were tested for and found negative for chytrid. The worst case scenario only prohibits import or interstate transport of untested or positive amphibians without a permit.
> 
> 
> Ed


I agree that I may have pushed it a little far with end of the hobby talk but the fact is if this sort of deal was put in place I know of quite a few froggers that would just close up shop accross the state lines issue and Im guessing it could be more than any of us think. If it wouldn't affect me to do buisness inside of only Ga I might only sell my retics here. Now Im more than happy to get them tested again but it would just be easier to keep buisness inside Ga. That perspective could very easily make it impossible for people in states that are very limited with breeders and hobbyists to get certain frogs they desire. The push for this stuff has began, I dont see them just backing out now. If a small portion of it passes they will just try harder next time. If the people who depend on this hobby to make a living get out of it due to the paperwork that there is a big dent in this hobby. The hobby cant stay alive in everystate with with something like this going through. 
Michael


----------



## Ed

poison beauties said:


> If the people who depend on this hobby to make a living get out of it due to the paperwork that there is a big dent in this hobby. The hobby cant stay alive in everystate with with something like this going through.


Again, this is very premature as there isn't hasn't even been any discussion (even hypothetically) on what level of certification is needed. 

Based on the dollar amounts involved and that they have already recognized that companies are going to be impacted (in this economy) I am skeptical that it is going to reach the doomsday scenarios that are being proposed. 

If people really think that is what is going to happen then shouldn't they really be stocking up on the species they like.... as local market demands are going to increase as they could then sell competatively (ala cb marine fish) to the local pet stores (as hypothetically) it will be harder to get frogs across state borders.. 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

If you want to know what's going to happen with this proposed rule change to the Lacy Act all you have to do is to watch what's happening with the snake ban. One thing is certain: the proposed rule change will be supported, as written, by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Defenders of Wildlife (DOF). They both will push very hard to have this legislation passed, and they will both urge all their members to comment in favour of the rule change.

Ed's right about commenting at this point to USF&WS - wait until the comment period opens and then look for direction from USARK.

What everyone can do NOW is to call attention to this proposed rule change. Tell everyone you know about it. Also, learn as much as you can about the issues because there will be misinformation reported in newspapers and repeated by gullible politicians.

Stay Alert - Be Aware!


----------



## Web Wheeler

Web Wheeler said:


> I have emailed Susan Jewell, Biologist, Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service with my questions and will post her reply when it is recieved.



[email protected]
05/18/2010 12:14 PM

To
[email protected]
cc

Subject
Injurious Wildlife Evaluation; Amphibian Trade and Chytrid Fungus

I have a few questions that pertain to the following:

"Abstract: We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live
amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the
Lacey Act unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
(chytrid fungus). The importation and introduction of live amphibians
infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a
threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce,
as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife
resources. For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid
fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation
into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by
any means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for scientific,
medical, educational, or zoological purposes."

Source:
View Rule

Here are my questions concerning the certification of amphibians to be
free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus):

1. Who qualifies for certification (e.g. the general public, only
scientific, medical, educational, or zoological institutions, etc.)

2. Who will perform the certification?

3. How will the certification be conducted?

4. How much will the certification cost?

5. How long will the certification take?

6. How often does the certification have to be done?

7. Where will the certification take place?

I look forward to hearing back from you, and thank you for your time
in doing so!

Best regards,
Web Wheeler 



REPLY:

Dear Mr. Wheeler:

Thank you for your interest in the chytrid fungus issue. We received a
petition from the Defenders of Wildlife that asked us to evaluate their
suggestion of listing amphibians in trade as injurious wildlife unless
they are certified as being free of chytrid fungus. The petitioners are
concerned that trade is a pathway for the fungus, which is devastating
amphibian populations. The Defenders petition can be found here:
http://www.defenders.org/resources/...on/petition_to_interior_secretary_salazar.pdf

We are currently gathering information to address that petition and are
not ready to answer questions at this time. We will soon be publishing a
notice in the Federal Register that will be asking the public for
information on the subject. The Federal Register notice may answer some of
your questions. We encourage you to submit information at that time
through one of the methods explained in the notice. Your information,
along with other public comments, might help us to best address the
petition. You can check Regulations.gov periodically for Docket
No. FWS-R9-FHC-2009-0093.You won't find it until it publishes, but you
will have 90 days once it publishes to submit your information online at
Regulations.gov. Then we will evaluate all the information
submitted and may publish a proposed rule with specific details of what we
propose, or make a finding that there is no basis for further action. If
we proceed to a proposed rule, there would also be a public comment
period. After that, either a final rule would follow, or we could withdraw
the proposed rule and take no further action. The process is long, but it
greatly benefits from input from the knowledgeable public. During this
process, no regulations are expected to change related to the petition.

You might find some useful information on the injurious wildlife
provisions of the Lacey Act from this fact sheet:
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/pdf_files/InjuriousWildlifeFactSheet2007.pdf

Again, thank you for your interest in this issue.


Susan Jewell, Injurious Wildlife Listing Coordinator
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 770
Arlington, VA 22203
phone 703-358-2416 fax 703-358-2487
[email protected]


----------



## Web Wheeler

*More Important Info:*

"The sudden appearance of chytridiomycosis, the cause of amphibian deaths and population declines in several continents, suggests that its etiologic agent, the amphibian chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, was introduced into the affected regions. However, the origin of this virulent pathogen is unknown. A survey was conducted of 697 archived specimens of 3 species of Xenopus collected from 1879 to 1999 in southern Africa in which the histologic features of the interdigital webbing were analyzed. The earliest case of chytridiomycosis found was in a Xenopus laevis frog in 1938, and overall prevalence was 2.7%. The prevalence showed no significant differences between species, regions, season, or time period. Chytridiomycosis was a stable endemic infection in southern Africa for 23 years before any positive specimen was found outside Africa. We propose that Africa is the origin of the amphibian chytrid and that the international trade in X. laevis that began in the mid-1930s was the means of dissemination."

Source: Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus

and

"Regarding to adverse effects that contribute to amphibian declines, the effects of atrazine on sex differentiation can negatively affect amphibian populations. The effects of the pesticide mixture on growth can have an even more rapid negative effect on populations, as described above. The immunosuppressive effects are likely even more relevant. Most significantly, the nine-pesticide mixture increased plasma corticosterone levels. Corticosterone can produce all the effects observed with the pesticide mixtures, including retarded growth (Hayes 1995a, 1995b; Hayes and Wu 1995; Hayes et al. 1993, 1997), retarded development (Glennemeier et al. 2002a, 2002b; Hayes 1995a, 1995b, 1997b; Hayes and Wu 1995; Hayes et al. 1993, 1997), and immunosuppression (Belden and Kiesecker 2005; Hayes 1995b). *Given these adverse effects and the continued increase and use of pesticides in agriculture over the last 50 years, it is likely that pesticides have played and will continue to play a role in amphibian declines. In particular, the effects described here are very important. Pesticide-induced declines in populations as a result of decreased prey availability and increased susceptibility to predators (as a result of decreased size and the negation or reversal of the relationship between time to metamorphosis and size at metamorphosis) may be difficult to discern in the wild. Perhaps more important, emergent diseases caused by agents such as ranavirus (Brunner et al. 2005; Green and Muths 2005; Jancovich et al. 2005; Pearman et al. 2004) and chytrid (Berger et al. 1998; Green and Muths 2005; McCallum 2005; Ouellet et al. 2005; Rollins-Smith et al. 2002; Weldon et al. 2004) are considered major contributors to amphibian declines. Given the present findings with the flavobacteria in the present study, perhaps these diseases are not emergent at all. As suggested by Burkhart et al. (2003), perhaps what is emergent is the inability to mount proper immune responses as a result of pesticide exposure.* As Sparling et al. (2003) pointed out, “Unfortunately, almost all research on amphibian population declines has focused on single factors or multiple factors considered individually with little consideration for interactions.” This approach has to change if problems are to be identified and solutions formulated."

Source: Pesticide Mixtures, Endocrine Disruption, and Amphibian Declines: Are We Underestimating the Impact?

Emphasis in *bold* is mine.


----------



## Web Wheeler

"*In the 1930s, African frogs were exported for use in human pregnancy tests and it is suggested they may have carried a fungal disease with them.*"

"In the 1930s and 40s, live female Xenopus frogs were used widely in Europe, Australasia and north America in pregnancy testing.

A sample of the woman's urine was injected under the frog's skin; if the woman was pregnant, a hormone in her urine caused the frog to ovulate.

Alternative tests involved male frogs and toads, which produced sperm in response to the human hormone gonadotrophin.

Thousands of Xenopus were exported from Africa each year, potentially carrying Batrachochytrium with them, and - perhaps through occasional escapes - delivering it to the habitats of other continents, where it could inflict major damage on amphibian species that were more vulnerable."

Source: Pregnancy test link to frog fall

Emphasis in *bold* is mine. Also note, as Ed and others on this thread have pointed out, to spread the Chytrid Fungus it is not necessary for an actual frog to escape. Untreated waste water from the frog's enclosure can just as easily cause a Chytrid Fungus outbreak in local watersheds. The above evidence strongly suggests that the pet trade was NOT the primary vector for the spread of Chytrid Fungus.


----------



## Ed

If you dig around in the old fish books from that era, they were also sold in the pet trade. We cannot seperate the potential introduction point. 

I can dig up the reference if I have to but the first recorded incidence of chytrid in a clawed frog was an animal that was collected and pickled in 1938. The rate of incidence in the clawed frogs in the collection was really low. See http://www.cdc.gov/NCIDOD/EID/vol10no12/03-0804.htm 

I'll have to look it up but there is an interesting article that puts some significant doubt on the out of Africa theory. 


A different interesting article http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/rowley-2007.pdf This article (as do a number of others are) is indicating that this is a novel pathogen and not an endemic one...


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> I can dig up the reference if I have to but the first recorded incidence of chytrid in a clawed frog was an animal that was collected and pickled in 1938. The rate of incidence in the clawed frogs in the collection was really low. See Origin of Amphibian Chytrid Fungus | CDC EID


You don't have to go to the CDC to verify this... just look at my above post. It has both a direct quote verifying your points as well as the citation used by the CDC.



Ed said:


> I'll have to look it up but there is an interesting article that puts some significant doubt on the out of Africa theory.


That would be interesting to see... please post the citation!



Ed said:


> A different interesting article http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/rowley-2007.pdf This article (as do a number of others are) is indicating that this is a novel pathogen and not an endemic one...


There are valid points on both sides of this debate that are not countered by the opposing side. The evidence is not conclusive either way, so no one should assume that one hypothesis is more correct than the other. No respectable scientific organization would advocate for one THEORY while ignoring the other.


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> That would be interesting to see... please post the citation!


When I get a chance I'll see if I can track it down. 





Web Wheeler said:


> There are valid points on both sides of this debate that are not countered by the opposing side. The evidence is not conclusive either way, so no one should assume that one hypothesis is more correct than the other. No respectable scientific organization would advocate for one THEORY while ignoring the other.


The problem is that the preponderance of evidence is really starting to weigh down the scales on the emergence of a novel pathogen. There is an ever increasing amount of DNA evidence that indicates that this is a recent jump and that the different strains indicates that this is not only a recent emergence but that the pathogen is already starting to evolve into different strains. 

There is evidence that chytrid is not well correlated with the effects on the enviroment while ranavirus is much better correlated .. see Anthropogenic Influence on Prevalence of 2 Amphibian Pathogens 

Ed


----------



## Web Wheeler

Ed said:


> A different interesting article http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/rowley-2007.pdf This article (as do a number of others are) is indicating that this is a novel pathogen and not an endemic one...


Ed, are you sure you posted the correct link adding support for the Novel Pathogen Hypothesis? The above link takes me to "Experimental Infection and Repeat Survey Data Indicate the Amphibian Chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis May Not Occur on Freshwater Crustaceans in Northern Queensland, Australia", which makes no mention of either the Endemic or Novel Pathogen Hypothesis!



Ed said:


> The problem is that the preponderance of evidence is really starting to weigh down the scales on the emergence of a novel pathogen.


I've not done an exhaustive study to determine if there is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other, have you? When the Global Warming Debate was a hot topic (hey, there's a pun), there seemed to be more supporters of the Endemic Pathogen Hypothesis. However, a preponderance of evidence is not proof, especially when there are scientifically valid arguments on both sides of the debate.



Ed said:


> There is an ever increasing amount of DNA evidence that indicates that this is a recent jump and that the different strains indicates that this is not only a recent emergence but that the pathogen is already starting to evolve into different strains.


Can you post a few citations for this assertion because I'm having difficulty finding any; different isolates - yes; strains - no. Here is the definition of strain vs. isolate that I refer to: "A strain is a bacterium that has some level of genetic definition, often plasmids that confer specific traits. An isolate, by contrast does not necessarily have such definition, but is simply the bugs that were isolated from the sample."



Ed said:


> There is evidence that chytrid is not well correlated with the effects on the enviroment while ranavirus is much better correlated .. see Anthropogenic Influence on Prevalence of 2 Amphibian Pathogens


This article seems to offer support to the Endemic Pathogen Hypothesis:

Here:

"Although the relationship between the emergence of zoonotic diseases and human influenced landscapes is accepted (1–3), the relationship between human-influenced landscapes and wildlife disease is less so. Evidence does support correlations between human activities and environmental conditions affecting wildlife disease emergence (2,3)."

And here:

"Second, human activities such as construction and industry, may directly or indirectly influence the basic reproductive number, R0, of ranavirus to a greater extent than for that of B. dendrobatidis. Although ranavirus does exhibit optimal environmental ranges for replication and infection, the virulence of B. dendrobatidis can be directly influenced by the environment (2). Furthermore, infection by B. dendrobatidis occurs through a free-living stage; ranavirus is more likely transmitted through direct contact, which suggests that B. dendrobatidis would be more sensitive to environmental factors. Last, human activities may influence host ability to mediate immune responses that have the capability to prevent infection. Evidence exists that amphibian host responses to ranavirus are predominantly acquired (9); those for B. dendrobatidis may be more innate and less prone to environmental manipulation (10).Although the observed correlation should be further tested and the disturbance index should be refined, we believe our observed pattern may reflect the influence of human activities and habitat modification in the dispersal of infectious diseases."


----------



## Ed

I messed up with the first link as I was saving and posting some things in a couple of areas (and sending them to my printer). 

Preponderance of evidence does not equate proof unless it is a "law" (such as the law of gravity).. for example there is a preponderance of evidence that the sun will show up on the eastern horizon in the morning but there is no guarantee. One has to look at the evidence and decide when it is sufficient. For some people there will never be a preponderance of proof regardless of how much evidence has been documented (for an extreme example flat earthers). 

I've been trying to keep up with the data for a long time now, in a Endemic pathogen hypothosis, you would expect to see wide variations with in the species of pathogen (for example look at the variation in flu virus in waterfowl (which are main reservoir species), or the various serotypes in Salmonella enterica.... In a novel pathogen theory, you would see little genetic variation, indications that any strains are recent (and not a lot of them) 
and possibly indications of a genetic bottleneck. The molecular data that has been coming out is pretty comprehensive and clear that this in most of the globe a novel pathogen. 

If it was an endemic pathogen, one would also find evidence of it in museum collection prior to 1938 as there are collections in existence that easily predate that time line. 
If it was an endemic in the USA it should have shown up in the museum collections prior to the 1950s.. 



When the articles are referring to a strain they are referring to genetic variations.. 

see 
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2005/68/d068p047.pdf

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2005/68/d068p047.pdf

http://www.jcu.com.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/morehouse-2003.pdf

Population genetics of the frog-killing fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis ? PNAS

Rapid Global Expansion of the Fungal Disease Chytridiomycosis into Declining and Healthy Amphibian Populations

http://www-lbtest.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/boyle-2004.pdf

this abstract Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The molecular data in the above articles is pretty clear that that chytrid is a recently evolved pathogen and is has achieved global distribution with relatively very little variation being discovered in the genetics of the pathogen. There are a number of recently evolved strains (which is what one would expect if a pathogen has recently jumped to a novel host group). This combined with the lack of presence in any collections beyond a certain point gives a strong indication that was not an globally endemic pathogen/parasite. The question is still up in the air on whether or not it evolved in Africa or not... 

With respect to enviromental effects on would expect to see a greater prevelence where human effects cause problems with the immune response of the affected amphibians but in at least on study this is not correlated with chytrid but is correlated with ranavirus see 
Anthropogenic Influence on Prevalence of 2 Amphibian Pathogens


----------



## Afemoralis

So... is there anything in here that will limit the shipment of greenhouse crops? Huge source of amphibian transport across statelines (Eleutherodactylus anyone?) And at least in my opinion, much more likely to be interactive with native wildlife than Dendrobatid keepers. If the argument could be made that ALL greenhouse crops will need to be exhaustively searched or sprayed to knock out the possibility of amphibian transport, the agri folks will be up in arms... might rally a larger (...more $$$$) group to your cause.

I do think it is worth thinking about your motivations to oppose these proposed rules. Chytrid is something worth being concerned about if you care about frog populations.
I'm 100% for regulation of the wild-caught amphibian trade, imported and native. If import/transport permits go to special cases and documented captivebred animals sans Chytrid, I think the frogs and the hobby, would be better off. Pushing regulators towards controlling import of wild caught animals and making a stand as a responsible, informed community actively breeding animals in captivity might be productive.

-Afemoralis


----------



## Ed

Web Wheeler said:


> This article seems to offer support to the Endemic Pathogen Hypothesi Here:
> 
> "Although the relationship between the emergence of zoonotic diseases and human influenced landscapes is accepted (1–3), the relationship between human-influenced landscapes and wildlife disease is less so. Evidence does support correlations between human activities and environmental conditions affecting wildlife disease emergence (2,3)."
> 
> And here:
> 
> "Second, human activities such as construction and industry, may directly or indirectly influence the basic reproductive number, R0, of ranavirus to a greater extent than for that of B. dendrobatidis. Although ranavirus does exhibit optimal environmental ranges for replication and infection, the virulence of B. dendrobatidis can be directly influenced by the environment (2). Furthermore, infection by B. dendrobatidis occurs through a free-living stage; ranavirus is more likely transmitted through direct contact, which suggests that B. dendrobatidis would be more sensitive to environmental factors. Last, human activities may influence host ability to mediate immune responses that have the capability to prevent infection. Evidence exists that amphibian host responses to ranavirus are predominantly acquired (9); those for B. dendrobatidis may be more innate and less prone to environmental manipulation (10).Although the observed correlation should be further tested and the disturbance index should be refined, we believe our observed pattern may reflect the influence of human activities and habitat modification in the dispersal of infectious diseases."



You skipped out the important part.. the actual correlation data 
quote" Eight ponds exhibited signs of FV3 (ed comment, ranavirus) infection (range 0%–63% prevalence); 6 ponds contained frogs infected with the amphibian chytrid (range 0%–36% prevalence). *GLM did not show any relationship between the prevalence of chytrid infection and all of our explanatory variables *(Table). *In contrast, 3 of our explanatory variables had a significant influence of ranavirus prevalence. Distance to industrial activity (p<0.05), to human habitation (p<0.05), and degree of human influence (p<0.01) all had a significant effect on the dependent variable ."endquote*
Bold my emphasis


When referring to enviromental parameters for chytrid one has to remember that it has a narrow window in which it will kill the host. If the temperature is above 25 C, then mortality does not occur unless the frog is manipulating it's temperature to be below that point.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Afemoralis said:


> So... is there anything in here that will limit the shipment of greenhouse crops? Huge source of amphibian transport across statelines (Eleutherodactylus anyone?) And at least in my opinion, much more likely to be interactive with native wildlife than Dendrobatid keepers. If the argument could be made that ALL greenhouse crops will need to be exhaustively searched or sprayed to knock out the possibility of amphibian transport, the agri folks will be up in arms... might rally a larger (...more $$$$) group to your cause.


Absolutely, and something I had not considered! I'm just coming up to speed on the issues concerning BD. Thank you for making this excellent point!



Afemoralis said:


> I do think it is worth thinking about your motivations to oppose these proposed rules. Chytrid is something worth being concerned about if you care about frog populations. I'm 100% for regulation of the wild-caught amphibian trade, imported and native. If import/transport permits go to special cases and documented captive bred animals sans Chytrid, I think the frogs and the hobby, would be better off. Pushing regulators towards controlling import of wild caught animals and making a stand as a responsible, informed community actively breeding animals in captivity might be productive.


I agree, if the proposed regulation can accomplish its intended purpose, which should be to mitigate the devastation caused by BD - not to further the agenda of any special interest group such as Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS, PETA, etc. This is why I'm so interested in exploring what BD is all about; so that I can give an informed opinion when the USF&WS comment period opens.

I do NOT feel the proposed regulation will have much effect on BD mitigation. The proposed regulation is like attempting to stop the flow of water through a sieve by plugging only one tiny hole - it simply won't work if what you want to do is to mitigate BD. On the other hand, this type of regulation could make it impossible for private individuals to continue to keep and breed dart frogs, which is exactly what Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS, PETA, etc. want to accomplish. Go figure!

Additionally, as Mark Pepper pointed out, this regulation could actually hurt conservation efforts:



MPepper said:


> "Will the spread of chytrid stop? Likely not. We need to remember that Bd and other pathogens are spread in parts of the world where there is nothing which resembles a “pet trade”. Obviously there are some natural dispersal mechanisms at play.
> 
> The fungus is here, and has been for some time, that is miserable enough. I hope that any regulatory changes address the concerns of the DOW proposal as well as the concerns of hobbyists, most of whom, I know care greatly about the state of amphibians the world over. Hopefully, the outcome of this movement will not be too heavy handed (towards the hobby), and will be worded/implemented in a way that will benefit native amphibians and potential risks to them and their environs
> 
> *With increasing efforts underway towards sustainable, ethically and legitimately produced amphibians throughout South America, these projects which are working directly in the most amphibian diverse countries in the world could be hurt by this. The potential to fund conservation, research and education initiatives derived from sales within the US could be stifled depending on how this unfolds.*"
> 
> Emphasis in *bold* is mine (W.W.)


Should the proposed regulation allow the dart frog / amphibian hobby to continue while protecting amphibians in the wild, I'm all for it. But I don't think things are going to turn out that way. We can only wait and see, and in the meantime, learn as much as we can about the issues.

Stay Alert - Be Aware!


----------



## Web Wheeler

Thanks for posting links to info. re. BD strains, Ed. I will read everyone of your links, including the first one twice.


----------



## Ed

Afemoralis said:


> So... is there anything in here that will limit the shipment of greenhouse crops? Huge source of amphibian transport across statelines (Eleutherodactylus anyone?) And at least in my opinion, much more likely to be interactive with native wildlife than Dendrobatid keepers. If the argument could be made that ALL greenhouse crops will need to be exhaustively searched or sprayed to knock out the possibility of amphibian transport, the agri folks will be up in arms... might rally a larger (...more $$$$) group to your cause.


Well if one looks at several of the states there are already regulations prohibiting transport into a state (such as California). For Californian see the faq sheets linked off of here 
CDFA > PHPPS > PE > Helping to Protect California's Agriculture and Environment. One can get an idea of where it could (in theory) end up. 

Ed


----------

