# Revealing the truth about Save The Frogs!



## Vermfly

I am signed up on the email list of Save The Frogs! because I want to keep an eye on them and their secret mission of destroying our entire hobby. One part of Dr. Kerry Kriger's latest email caught my eye.

"Poison Dart Frogs, Red-Eyed Treefrogs and Fire-Bellied Toads are being stolen from their forests, trafficked around the world and sold to human owners who will hold them as slaves against their will in confined tanks for the rest of their lives."​
I think we can all agree that the unchecked illegal, smuggling of frogs is a terrible thing but the part that caught my eye was the last part that reveals the true motive of the group. 

*"...human owners who will hold them as slaves against their will in confined tanks for the rest of their lives."*​
Like PETA and many other radical animal rights groups Dr. Kriger compares the keeping of our amphibian collections to slavery. I hope no one on this board continues to support this radical and dangerous organization whose now plainly stated goal is the annihilation of our hobby.


----------



## Boondoggle

Well, if my frogs are slaves then they certainly are not pulling their fair share. In fact when I look at the distribution of labor in this relationship I think I might be the slave.

Gotta' go. I'm spending the afternoon rebuilding the drain system for my slaves.


----------



## Philsuma

There are at least 3 other threads archived here in this forum, on that organization / individual, for your reading and judgemental perusal.

Bonus frog points to the first person to corral them all up in a follow-up posting.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Boondoggle said:


> Well, if my frogs are slaves then they certainly are not pulling their fair share. In fact when I look at the distribution of labor in this relationship I think I might be the slave.
> 
> Gotta' go. I'm spending the afternoon rebuilding the drain system for my slaves.



*he wrote, as the crack of the task master's whip echoed in the distance*


----------



## Pumilo

The time is ripe to finally release my line of tiny little frog whips!
Doug


----------



## chesney

I believe myself to be a slave to my frogs as well! They take up at least 2 hours a day in feeding, egg checking, putting tads in the water, misting, etc


----------



## Jason

Philsuma said:


> There are at least 3 other threads archived here in this forum, on that organization / individual, for your reading and judgemental perusal.
> 
> Bonus frog points to the first person to corral them all up in a follow-up posting.



http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...hytrid-fungus-lacey-act-usfws-save-frogs.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...deral-listing-chytrid-free-certification.html


----------



## NathanB

"Revealing the truth" I didn't know he was hiding his views about the subject. In fact I thought it was common knowledge by now.


----------



## markpulawski

glass boxes...I actually have 3 frogs now detailing my car (yes the one with the new transmission), and I have 2 female frogs doing windows...and yes they are topless..
what a kook, does he apologize to the cucumber before he eats it?


----------



## Ulisesfrb

markpulawski said:


> glass boxes...I actually have 3 frogs now detailing my car (yes the one with the new transmission), and I have 2 female frogs doing windows...and yes they are topless..
> what a kook, does he apologize to the cucumber before he eats it?


Did your slave frogs also install that new transmission?


----------



## evolvstll

Boondoggle said:


> Well, if my frogs are slaves then they certainly are not pulling their fair share. In fact when I look at the distribution of labor in this relationship I think I might be the slave.
> 
> Gotta' go. I'm spending the afternoon rebuilding the drain system for my slaves.


I fully agree on this aspect. I suppose my other slaves like my dogs need to start pulling more than their own then.


----------



## jig1

My slave frogs are obedient and never talk back.


----------



## Pumilo

jig1 said:


> My slave frogs are obedient and never talk back.


Nice! My insolent little slave talk back all the time! Seems to be mostly the males...
Doug


----------



## Woodsman

Rather than just mocking the statement, perhaps we can reflect for one minute on the thousands upon thousands of animals that literally are "ripped" from the wild, suffer unimaginable horrors and high percent mortality in transit, all this just to satisfy OUR insatiable desire for wild-collected and endangered animals.

I, for one, applaud all efforts to end the wild-colecting of amphibians and all animals from the wild. As a hobby, we should be able to prove that we are competent enough to breed all the animals that we need for our own enjoyment OURSELVES.

It is our LACK of success with these frogs that leads to wild-collecting and the smuggling of endangered species such as O. histrionicus and O. sylvaticus.

Just my opinion, Richard.


----------



## jig1

Woodsman said:


> Rather than just mocking the statement, perhaps we can reflect for one minute on the thousands upon thousands of animals that literally are "ripped" from the wild, suffer unimaginable horrors and high percent mortality in transit, all this just to satisfy OUR insatiable desire for wild-collected and endangered animals.
> 
> Just my opinion, Richard.


Since we already do this, how bout we stand up against fools like this who want to do away with the hobby. Yes there are "bad guys" and "smugglers" but why should we allow them to ruin it for "the rest of us".


----------



## Woodsman

This statement is referring specifically to wild-collected animals, not to captive-bred animals.


----------



## illinoisfrogs

you know, don't you, that all the animals you currently keep came from wild collected animals at some time.......if you are completely against any wild collecting of any sort, you ought to be against keeping of animals completely.....


----------



## Vermfly

It reveals his feeling about our entire hobby. The first part of the statement was about wild collected animals but I feel the last part illuminates his true feelings about keeping frogs in captivity in general.


----------



## Pumilo

Vermfly said:


> *"...human owners who will hold them as slaves against their will in confined tanks for the rest of their lives."*​


Richard, how can you deny, with a statement like this, that the eventual goal is eradication of our hobby? It is extremely obvious that he is against confinement in captivity. It may be about wild caught now, but the eventual goal is pretty obvious here.
Doug


----------



## Vermfly

His choice of the analogy with slavery was telling. If he only meant wild-caught frogs then he would be saying it would be okay to keep human slaves if they were born slaves using his words.


----------



## Woodsman

I find it hard to believe that none of the other keepers here occasionally feel that the tanks we keep our frogs in are NOT a good approximation of the wild and that we do deprive them of a "free" life.

And no, captive breeding and wild-collecting are NOT the same thing. Obviously, all our frogs lineages came from the wild, but that IS NOT a justification for continuing a brutal practice.

I think it is an irrational fear to believe that all American pets are going to be taken away just because PETA or Save the Frogs says so. It's a bit of a paranoid perspective, if you ask me.

Richard.


----------



## Philsuma

Please Lord (or insert your deity of choice).....not another PETA thread...


----------



## Azurel

This guy is a loon along with his friends over at Friends of Animals.......I don't think most(dart hobby) have an insatiable desire for wild collected animals ripped from their wild homes, in fact all of mine are captive bred and all of the ones I will have in the future wither it be Darts or tree frogs will be captive bred. I think most in this hobby realize that CB is the way to go. But in most hobbies like darts and others like reefing the process is slow moving, although in both cases there will always be those that want what they want wither it be through the legal or illegal collection....

Either way we will always have to deal with these self appointed enlightened ones that think they are smarter, more intelligent then us animal slave masters and they will always be "the be all end all" to "Saving the world from itself and you".


----------



## jig1

Philsuma said:


> Please Lord (or insert your deity of choice).....not another PETA thread...


Amen. (It wont let me post just Amen so here's my +10 characters.)


----------



## Pumilo

Woodsman said:


> I find it hard to believe that none of the other keepers here occasionally feel that the tanks we keep our frogs in are NOT a good approximation of the wild and that we do deprive them of a "free" life.
> 
> And no, captive breeding and wild-collecting are NOT the same thing. Obviously, all our frogs lineages came from the wild, but that IS NOT a justification for continuing a brutal practice.
> 
> I think it is an irrational fear to believe that all American pets are going to be taken away just because PETA or Save the Frogs says so. It's a bit of a paranoid perspective, if you ask me.
> 
> Richard.


I guess I'm a little confused here. Why are you keeping frogs if you feel that captivity is so bad for them? Or are you saying YOU give them good conditions but the rest of us are enslaving them and depriving them of a free life?
Also, nobody here is championing the cause of continuing wild collecting. We are pointing out the extremely obvious point that he's not going to stop at ending wild collecting. You seem to be ignoring his statement, "...human owners who will hold them as slaves against their will in confined tanks for the rest of their lives." The meaning behind this is very obvious.
Doug


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Woodsman said:


> Rather than just mocking the statement, perhaps we can reflect for one minute on the thousands upon thousands of animals that literally are "ripped" from the wild, suffer unimaginable horrors and high percent mortality in transit, all this just to satisfy OUR insatiable desire for wild-collected and endangered animals.



I thought he had a decent point until he made the comparison to slavery. But because of the comparison to slavery, it invites mockery, and takes away from the original point


----------



## jkooiman

Amphibians are very near the last rung of the bottom of the food chain. Longevity records we see achieved in captivity would probably not be seen in the wild. I'm sure a frog being dismembered by a frog eating bat would rather be a "slave". 

Doctor Krigers remark alluded that "frogs in glass boxes are slaves", inferring that the keeping of them therein is basically immoral. There is no asterisk noting that captive bred are "Ok". JVK


----------



## fleshfrombone

Not only do I enslave frogs by keeping them in glass cages, I mock them by raising their babies and putting their baby pictures facing inward on the parents tanks. If you think that's bad I also attach little squeegees to them and make them clean my windows.

No in all seriousness this guy is a quack much like PETA and it's silly supporters. It bothers me that I have to continually point out what hypocrites and fascists these organizations are. 

Rich if you keep frogs and actively engage in the hobby then how can you in good conscience support this group? I'm sure you've made strides to make sure your animals are captive bred but like others have already said the original stock comes from wild caught frogs. They weren't created by some miracle of science/biogenesis.


----------



## Pumilo

Ease up guys. I have it on good authority that Richard's frogs come and go as they please. He regularly flys them out to Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil, and other froggy paradise hot spots for month long vacations. Of course they return voluntarily as his Vivs are generally several square miles worth of Mother Natures finest rainforest.
Doug


----------



## Woodsman

I didn't have any doubts that, by going against the structural paranoia here, I would also be mocked. I've come to kind of enjoy it.

Illegally smuggled locality O. Sylvaticus and Red-head O. histrionicus sell for about $1800 for a trio and numerous members (including moderators) have purchased these smuggled frogs. This is the ACTUAL state of the hobby today.

It saddens me to see that there isn't more support for moving the hobby away from wild-collected and smuggled animals, but I learned a long while back that the hobby is mostly populated by thirteen year old boys who think there out back at the creek catching frogs (or at least people who act like thirteen year olds).

Don't take this as a criticism. I include myself in that group. I may be different in at least I am trying to become more adult about the way I think about the frogs we love and how cruelly they are often obtained on our behalf.

Just my opinion, Richard.


----------



## fleshfrombone

Woodsman said:


> I didn't have any doubts that, by going against the structural paranoia here, I would also be mocked. I've come to kind of enjoy it.
> 
> Illegally smuggled locality O. Sylvaticus and Red-head O. histrionicus sell for about $1800 for a trio and numerous members (including moderators) have purchased these smuggled frogs. This is the ACTUAL state of the hobby today.
> 
> It saddens me to see that there isn't more support for moving the hobby away from wild-collected and smuggled animals, but I learned a long while back that the hobby is mostly populated by thirteen year old boys who think there out back at the creek catching frogs (or at least people who act like thirteen year olds).
> 
> Don't take this as a criticism. I include myself in that group. I may be different in at least I am trying to become more adult about the way I think about the frogs we love and how cruelly they are often obtained on our behalf.
> 
> Just my opinion, Richard.


Rich I get what you're saying but dude, you don't see the hypocrisy there? When I mock it's to point this out. There's nothing grown up about it man. If you own frogs that came from smuggled stock and you rail against the evils of WC but profit from it you really can't take a firm stance then expect us to take it seriously. That's like a heroine addict complaining about junkies. That and did I seriously see *you* on another thread drooling over WC tincs from Europe? Forgive me if I missed the irony.


----------



## Pumilo

fleshfrombone said:


> Rich I get what you're saying but dude, you don't see the hypocrisy there? When I mock it's to point this out. There's nothing grown up about it man. If you own frogs that came from smuggled stock and you rail against the evils of WC but profit from it you really can't take a firm stance then expect us to take it seriously. That's like a heroine addict complaining about junkies. That and did I seriously see *you* on another thread drooling over WC tincs from Europe? Forgive me if I missed the irony.


I was going to point that out myself. Just tonight he posted apparently shopping for wild caught frogs! Can you say hypocrite?
Doug


----------



## DF20

**** Puts popcorn in microwave  ****


----------



## HunterB

fleshfrombone said:


> Rich I get what you're saying but dude, you don't see the hypocrisy there? When I mock it's to point this out. There's nothing grown up about it man. If you own frogs that came from smuggled stock and you rail against the evils of WC but profit from it you really can't take a firm stance then expect us to take it seriously. That's like a heroine addict complaining about junkies. That and did I seriously see *you* on another thread drooling over WC tincs from Europe? Forgive me if I missed the irony.





Pumilo said:


> I was going to point that out myself. Just tonight he posted apparently shopping for wild caught frogs! Can you say hypocrite?
> Doug


I think Richard's post in the group order thread has been misconstrued
Instead of drooling I think he was pointing out the price of the frog in general as somewhat high

or I could be completely wrong, just offering a different view


----------



## Woodsman

Don't worry boys! No shopping for me, wild-collected or otherwise (as I am BROKE!). I was commenting on the PRICE that was being asked for the frogs. Also, there has been an active discussion going on (on the ID threads) about what constitutes a Nikita tinctorius (which this frog did not seem like at all).

So, no hypocrisy as I don't have any wild-collected frogs and never will.

And as for the "you own frogs that came from wc ancestors is a hypocrisy" argument does make much sense to me either. As I have stated here, I think the need for continuing to import egg-feeders (many of them smuggled or illegally collected and represented as "farm-raised") is proof that we are not concentrating on being the best breeders we could be.

If we were REALLY good at breeding these frogs (and planning that would help maintain genetic diversity within the captive frogs), don't you think there could come a day when we wouldn't need to continue the barbaric practice of wild-colecting?

Just my thoughts, Richard.




fleshfrombone said:


> Rich I get what you're saying but dude, you don't see the hypocrisy there? When I mock it's to point this out. There's nothing grown up about it man. If you own frogs that came from smuggled stock and you rail against the evils of WC but profit from it you really can't take a firm stance then expect us to take it seriously. That's like a heroine addict complaining about junkies. That and did I seriously see *you* on another thread drooling over WC tincs from Europe? Forgive me if I missed the irony.


----------



## Azurel

It's not paranoia to understand and realize what the end game is of these orgs.....Just look at Friends of Animals and what they think of captive care of animals, domestication of animals.....It's not paranoia but reality of what they want the end game to be. Do they have to come out and say it? For you to realize it? I don't need them too......I think we all at least 98% agree illegal collected/smuggled animals is a detriment to the wild and the hobby. But that is not what they people like Dr. K are talking about. The use of the term slave is very telling. It's not enough for him to have his own ideology and agenda but that you must succumb to it or your just a immoral, racist slave owner of what should be free living sentient beings. My frogs have never been free don't know what freedom is and from what I can tell are very happy in their captive slave cage.

I won't mock you as that does not carry the conversation forward, but I do think it a bit naive to think that these folks won't spend money and time to stop this hobby and many others like it. Because their morality is far superior then yours because you are willing to keep other living things. Never mind the fact that animals have been captive cared for for 1000s of years. It's now that we can understand the ramifications of such things. But it like most topics are not black and white, and where we can have captive animals legally, sustainably collected at the same time learning and researching how to best do it without wiping out wild populations. Which in the end will be better for the captive animals and wild ones cause the more research that is done only provides more data,hobbyist, researchers to make informed opinions on how to keep and save the wild populations and protect their environment.

There would be a lot less money going to conservation of frogs, corals and reefs, if it wasn't for dedicated hobbyist like on DB,DF, RC, Reef2Reef putting money into orgs that want to conserve the natural habitat. In the end if the hobby didn't exist these frogs would be disappearing without a care or public notice because nobody would have any personal involvement, they would be just some animal in a jungle some where that nobody has ever seen except in zoos and maybe an article or 2 online some where.


----------



## jig1

On the website in the story of save the frogs it says something about how the 21st century humans ruined the earth and ate all the frogs and hunted the rest to extinction. Now the rest of the frogs are endangered because of that? Yea we are responsible for pollution and destroyed habitats. but cmon am I reading that story wrong?


----------



## Woodsman

I can say HYPOCRITTER!

Don't go getting bees in your bonnet or some such saying. My frog room is open to all (and I live about 5 blocks from where Frog Day is going to be held, so I'm offering an open invitation to any who want to check).

Cheers, Richard.



Pumilo said:


> I was going to point that out myself. Just tonight he posted apparently shopping for wild caught frogs! Can you say hypocrite?
> Doug


----------



## Philsuma

IMO...on the state of the hobby and market trends, talking with numerous breeders, movers, shakers...

The importation (WC) numbers are DOWN.

Captive bred animal production servicing the hobby / pet trade is UP

that's a 2 prong "swing". I think the days of the 80's - 90's of the "real horror", as you put it are in the rear view mirror.

I really do.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Phil,

Panama and Madagascar are a disaster. 90% of all exported amphibians come out of these two countries. Apparently these goverments don't give one whit about their fauna. I think it will become incumbent upon the U.S. to restrict imports of amphibians to the U.S. to avoid these species becoming extinct in the wild.

Take care, Richard.



Philsuma said:


> IMO...on the state of the hobby and market trends, talking with numerous breeders, movers, shakers...
> 
> The importation (WC) numbers are DOWN.
> 
> Captive bred animal production servicing the hobby / pet trade is UP
> 
> that's a 2 prong "swing". I think the days of the 80's - 90's of the "real horror", as you put it are in the rear view mirror.
> 
> I really do.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> Panama and Madagascar are a disaster. 90% of all exported amphibians come out of these two countries. Apparently these goverments don't give one whit about their fauna. I think it will become incumbent upon the U.S. to restrict imports of amphibians to the U.S. to avoid these species becoming extinct in the wild.
> 
> Take care, Richard.


Rich,

I can't speak about Panama, but I know quite a bit about Madagascar. The deforestation and burning will continue regardless of what happens in our hobby. The only diffrence will be is whether the animals displaced as a result will end up in the hands of responsible keepers and breeders or be left to die on site. To give one example near and dear to my heart look at the red rain frogs, only 400 will be allowed to be collected from the wild next year, yet how many wil be killed by the toxic runoff residue from the Chinese zinc mines being established in the area? I'm certainly no apologist for WC importation but there is a place for it in the hobby as a way to establish new species or as an outlet for animals that no longer have a habitat to live in. To believe otherwise is a pipe dream.

Regards,
Roman


----------



## fleshfrombone

Woodsman said:


> Don't worry boys! No shopping for me, wild-collected or otherwise (as I am BROKE!). I was commenting on the PRICE that was being asked for the frogs. Also, there has been an active discussion going on (on the ID threads) about what constitutes a Nikita tinctorius (which this frog did not seem like at all).
> 
> So, no hypocrisy as I don't have any wild-collected frogs and never will.


Thank you for clearing that up.



Woodsman said:


> And as for the "you own frogs that came from wc ancestors is a hypocrisy" argument does make much sense to me either. As I have stated here, I think the need for continuing to import egg-feeders (many of them smuggled or illegally collected and represented as "farm-raised") is proof that we are not concentrating on being the best breeders we could be.
> 
> If we were REALLY good at breeding these frogs (and planning that would help maintain genetic diversity within the captive frogs), don't you think there could come a day when we wouldn't need to continue the barbaric practice of wild-colecting?
> 
> Just my thoughts, Richard.


That's called mental gymnastics. You are still just as culpable as the rest of us. Besides even the best record keeping cannot replace new blood in the hobby. Just to be not considered genetically extinct a population needs to have something like 100 pairs of genetically unrelated individuals or something to that extent (geneticists please correct me if I'm wrong here). Once again you (pot) are calling the kettle black. That's pretty childish.


----------



## james67

come on..... again? 

richard, we all know your stance on the subject of oophaga in the US. its your belief and your entitled to it, but i think you have to recognize that others dont necessarily feel the same way. 

and we all know that this argument goes on and on forever, like the "fred" thing. lets stick to the topic.

the representative of save the frogs made a ridiculous comment which is purely based on an individual's moral belief, and not on any sort of logical or scientific reasoning. i think threats like the proposed USF&W deal, carry more weight and support because they have (what at least at face value seems like) scientific data which supports their cause. "save the frogs" sounds like a group of fools and i highly doubt any significant number of politicians would want to align themselves with a morally based anti-pet group, which makes outlandish comments like the original post contained, particularly when there are large and influencial organizations that protect pet owners rights.

james


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Roman,

I understand your point, but the truth is that the hobby community (over time) has not shown to be very good stewards of endangered species of amphibians (i.e. O. lehmani and Atelopus zeteki). I think that zoos are the best bet here for institutional conservation efforts, but limited resources and participating institutions not having room or expertise is a problem.

I know there are numerous conservation efforts in Madagascar (mostly related to primates and birds), whose goal is to protect as much of the remaining forestlands as possible. Ultimately, that has to be the number one effort towards protecting any species (I have greenhouses full of the endangered native plants I work with, but they are not really "saved" unless they are successfully re-established in the wild).

Take care, Richard.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Rich,
> 
> I can't speak about Panama, but I know quite a bit about Madagascar. The deforestation and burning will continue regardless of what happens in our hobby. The only diffrence will be is whether the animals displaced as a result will end up in the hands of responsible keepers and breeders or be left to die on site. To give one example near and dear to my heart look at the red rain frogs, only 400 will be allowed to be collected from the wild next year, yet how many wil be killed by the toxic runoff residue from the Chinese zinc mines being established in the area? I'm certainly no apologist for WC importation but there is a place for it in the hobby as a way to establish new species or as an outlet for animals that no longer have a habitat to live in. To believe otherwise is a pipe dream.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman


----------



## jubjub47

Woodsman said:


> Illegally smuggled locality O. Sylvaticus and Red-head O. histrionicus sell for about $1800 for a trio and numerous members (including moderators) have purchased these smuggled frogs. This is the ACTUAL state of the hobby today.


What does being a moderator have to do with anything? The ability to control a message board in no way reflects their status in the hobby or their ability to keep animals.


----------



## Woodsman

I guess this is your opinion on this subject and we'll all have to accept it as your opinion and (blah,blah, blah) as you said about me...

If someone has a moral belief that is different from yours, you claim them to be ridiculous? If that is true, I think you better get down to writing a book full of all the beliefs we CAN"T have.

The quote was ABOUT wild-collected frogs, so I was (in fact), not off-topic talking about wild-collected frogs. So, no, I will not "come on" (what ever that means).

Just my opinion, Richard.



james67 said:


> come on..... again?
> 
> richard, we all know your stance on the subject of oophaga in the US. its your belief and your entitled to it, but i think you have to recognize that others dont necessarily feel the same way.
> 
> and we all know that this argument goes on and on forever, like the "fred" thing. lets stick to the topic.
> 
> the representative of save the frogs made a ridiculous comment which is purely based on an individual's moral belief, and not on any sort of logical or scientific reasoning. i think threats like the proposed USF&W deal, carry more weight and support because they have (what at least at face value seems like) scientific data which supports their cause. "save the frogs" sounds like a group of fools and i highly doubt any significant number of politicians would want to align themselves with a morally based anti-pet group, which makes outlandish comments like the original post contained, particularly when there are large and influencial organizations that protect pet owners rights.
> 
> james


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> Hi Roman,
> 
> I understand your point, but the truth is that the hobby community (over time) has not shown to be very good stewards of endangered species of amphibians (i.e. O. lehmani and Atelopus zeteki). I think that zoos are the best bet here for institutional conservation efforts, but limited resources and participating institutions not having room or expertise is a problem.
> 
> I know there are numerous conservation efforts in Madagascar (mostly related to primates and birds), whose goal is to protect as much of the remaining forestlands as possible. Ultimately, that has to be the number one effort towards protecting any species (I have greenhouses full of the endangered native plants I work with, but they are not really "saved" unless they are successfully re-established in the wild).
> 
> Take care, Richard.


Can't disagree with you more. Look at Azureus tincs there are more in captivity then in the wild, same with Kaiser newts, and many other species of amphibians and reptiles. Zoos simply don't have the time and resources and the majority of their time is focused on more flashy species like big cats and great apes.

Madagascar has 70% of its population under the age of 25 and is on the verge of yet another civil war. There is no government authority in Madagascar with the power or the interest to keep poor subsistence level farmers from clear cutting parts of these "reserves". What the hobbyist community can do is the establish captive populations of these species so that when and if the political situation in the country is stabilized and these reserves can be properly protected animals can be reintriduced into them. My sad suspicion is that for a many of the more specialized species such as mantellas, rain frogs, uroplatus and chameleons there may not be a future in the wild and our best chance is to preserve the species in captivity indefinetely. Unfortunately for many of these species there are simply not enough breeding groups in captivity to ensure long term success. *So my question remains what do we do with the animals that no longer have a habitat to live in if we don't bring them into captivity?*


----------



## james67

im saying that i seriously doubt that a group such as this would be supported based solely on a moral argument. thats it. i think the COMMENT was ridiculous because of the references to slavery and such. it was purely emotional and there was no evidence (that i saw) to support the cause(based on that statement)

and in reference to my statement about you, i was commenting on the fact that on a number of occasions threads which otherwise were not directly related to smuggling, people on DB owning rare or questionable frogs, etc., became focused on those topics, and that is what seems to be happening here. as far as i can tell, the conversation was about the organization "save the frogs" and their comment, not why we shouldn't keep X frog.

but thats just how i saw it.

james


----------



## Woodsman

I think Kaiseri are a VERY bad example here, as many of the newts in the hobby were illegally stolen from the wild (which is WHY they are endangered). I avoided having anything to do with them until there was an organized effort at breeding them and trying to meet the hobby needs through captive breeding (which I think is suceeding).

As I said, I don't think that hobbyists, in general, are equipped to care for these animals forever and many of them end-up in less than ideal situations. This isn't to say that individual hobbyists don't make great gains for specific animals of interest, it's just not happening in any organized way. If we could make that melding of hobbyists and zoological institutions when it comes to conservation, then we would have something!

Richard.





mantisdragon91 said:


> Can't disagree with you more. Look at Azureus tincs there are more in captivity then in the wild, same with Kaiser newts, and many other species of amphibians and reptiles. Zoos simply don't have the time and resources and the majority of their time is focused on more flashy species like big cats and great apes.
> 
> Madagascar has 70% of its population under the age of 25 and is on the verge of yet another civil war. There is no government authority in Madagascar with the power or the interest to keep poor subsistence level farmers from clear cutting parts of these "reserves". What the hobbyist community can do is the establish captive populations of these species so that when and if the political situation in the country is stabilized and these reserves can be properly protected animals can be reintriduced into them. My sad suspicion is that for a many of the more specialized species such as mantellas, rain frogs, uroplatus and chameleons there may not be a future in the wild and our best chance is to preserve the species in captivity indefinetely. Unfortunately for many of these species there are simply not enough breeding groups in captivity to ensure long term success. *So my question remains what do we do with the animals that no longer have a habitat to live in if we don't bring them into captivity?*


----------



## Woodsman

Got it. Wouldn't want to hi-jack a thread.

Richard.



james67 said:


> im saying that i seriously doubt that a group such as this would be supported based solely on a moral argument. thats it. i think the COMMENT was ridiculous because of the references to slavery and such. it was purely emotional and there was no evidence (that i saw) to support the cause(based on that statement)
> 
> and in reference to my statement about you, i was commenting on the fact that on a number of occasions threads which otherwise were not directly related to smuggling, people on DB owning rare or questionable frogs, etc., became focused on those topics, and that is what seems to be happening here. as far as i can tell, the conversation was about the organization "save the frogs" and their comment, not why we shouldn't keep X frog.
> 
> but thats just how i saw it.
> 
> james


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> I think Kaiseri are a VERY bad example here, as many of the newts in the hobby were illegally stolen from the wild (which is WHY they are endangered). I avoided having anything to do with them until there was an organized effort at breeding them and trying to meet the hobby needs through captive breeding (which I think is suceeding).
> 
> As I said, I don't think that hobbyists, in general, are equipped to care for these animals forever and many of them end-up in less than ideal situations. This isn't to say that individual hobbyists don't make great gains for specific animals of interest, it's just not happening in any organized way. If we could make that melding of hobbyists and zoological institutions when it comes to conservation, then we would have something!
> 
> Richard.


Agree with some of your points, however a less than ideal situation is still better than an animal dying on location because its water source has been poisoned by toxic runoff from a mine or its rainforest has been destroyed for farm land. The part I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that if these animals have a commercial value than perhaps the natives will be more likely to protect their environment especially if they can make more by collecting and selling the animals than they can by burning down the forest for farm land/pasture land that will only last a couple of years( Madgscar has notoriously thin soil and without tree cover it gets washed out in a couple of seasons. The fact that the soil tends to be of reddish color makes Madgascar look like it is bleeding from the air, a disturbing and rather accurate image)


----------



## Woodsman

Agreed!

Richard (Love those gottlebei!)



mantisdragon91 said:


> Agree with some of your points, however a less than ideal situation is still better than an animal dying on location because its water source has been poisoned by toxic runoff from a mine or its rainforest has been destroyed for farm land. The part I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that if these animals have a commercial value than perhaps the natives will be more likely to protect their environment especially if they can make more by collecting and selling the animals than they can by burning down the forest for farm land/pasture land that will only last a couple of years( Madgscar has notoriously thin soil and without tree cover it gets washed out in a couple of seasons. The fact that the soil tends to be of reddish color makes Madgascar look like it is bleeding from the air, a disturbing and rather accurate image)


----------



## Yobosayo

Is it normal for an executive director of a 501(c)(3) to pocket 20% of the organizations take for a calendar year?


----------



## Ed

This is getting pretty off topic but some points of clarification should be made... 



mantisdragon91 said:


> Rich,
> but there is a place for it in the hobby as a way to establish new species or as an outlet for animals that no longer have a habitat to live in. To believe otherwise is a pipe dream.


Establishing and maintaining a "species" in captivity is one thing..but it cannot be mistaken as a form of conservation as unless the species in maintained for the long term, as it will undergo adaptation to captivity resulting in a loss of allelle frequencies and possibly behavioral changes. This means it is no longer the animal that was removed from the wild... enough changes and it could be comparable to the differences between wolves and dogs.. 

If a species is not going to be maintained for the long-term, then does it really matter if it is collected or not? The end result is the same, it is effectively extinction for that population... 

Ed


----------



## fleshfrombone

Yobosayo said:


> Is it normal for an executive director of a 501(c)(3) to pocket 20% of the organizations take for a calendar year?


Wow, if this is true I'd say there's definitely an abuse of power going on there.


----------



## Ed

fleshfrombone said:


> just to be not considered genetically extinct a population needs to have something like 100 pairs of genetically unrelated individuals or something to that extent (geneticists please correct me if I'm wrong here). Once again you (pot) are calling the kettle black. That's pretty childish.


I'm not sure where this came from.. but this is not how I understand it (and I could be wrong) but species have not been considered to be extinct when there were very few founders used see for example Przewalski's Horse or Micronesian Kingfishers (29 founders).. the ideal is at least 50 founders and 100 is preferred. This allows close to a 100% chance to capture the allele frequency of the population where the animals were collected. Both of the above cited programs are either slated for repatriation (on snake free islands near Guam for the kingfishers) and the horse back into the original enviroment... 
Both are bottlenecked but it is hoped that enviromental pressures will result in the animals breaking through the bottleneck (and at least the kingfishers have shown inbreeding issues both behaviorally and physically.. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> What the hobbyist community can do is the establish captive populations of these species so that when and if the political situation in the country is stabilized and these reserves can be properly protected animals can be reintriduced into them.


At this time there are no programs for amphibians in the hobby that meet the criteria for release or repatriation. There are a number of issues including but not limited to
1) insufficient biosecurity through contact with non-zoogeographicly correct species increasing risk of novel pathogens through cross contamination 
2) no planning for or participation in a program to maintain a genetic frequency required for release/repatriation/augmentation programs
3) lack of pathogen screening 

I'm getting tired so I'm losing focus.. but there are other points to this sidebar of why the captive populations are not suitable for release.. 







mantisdragon91 said:


> My sad suspicion is that for a many of the more specialized species such as mantellas, rain frogs, uroplatus and chameleons there may not be a future in the wild and our best chance is to preserve the species in captivity indefinetely. Unfortunately for many of these species there are simply not enough breeding groups in captivity to ensure long term success. *So my question remains what do we do with the animals that no longer have a habitat to live in if we don't bring them into captivity?*


To the species it is effectively still extinction unless they are maintained in a manner by which thier allele frequencies are maximized and in a way that they can be released, they are still going to be extinct as they can't be released...


----------



## Ed

Woodsman said:


> Hi Roman,
> 
> I understand your point, but the truth is that the hobby community (over time) has not shown to be very good stewards of endangered species of amphibians (i.e. O. lehmani and Atelopus zeteki).


When did hobbyists work with Atelopus zeteki? 

Ed


----------



## Rain_Frog

Ed, an old book I read in sixth grade ("Amphibians as Pets" that is now out of print, dating from the 1970s) specifically talked about how to care for A. zeteki. The picture was in B/W, but it was clearly an A. zeteki.

I remember the book clear as day, because sixth grade was when I got my first clawed frog and I read the book over and over again


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> At this time there are no programs for amphibians in the hobby that meet the criteria for release or repatriation. There are a number of issues including but not limited to
> 1) insufficient biosecurity through contact with non-zoogeographicly correct species increasing risk of novel pathogens through cross contamination
> 2) no planning for or participation in a program to maintain a genetic frequency required for release/repatriation/augmentation programs
> 3) lack of pathogen screening
> 
> I'm getting tired so I'm losing focus.. but there are other points to this sidebar of why the captive populations are not suitable for release..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the species it is effectively still extinction unless they are maintained in a manner by which thier allele frequencies are maximized and in a way that they can be released, they are still going to be extinct as they can't be released...


Ed,

I'll have to politely disagree with you on this one. The one advantage that reptiles and amphibians have over birds and mammals is that most if not all of their behaviors are instinctual as opposed to learned making for a much easier reintroduction into the wild when and if suitable habitat has been restored. This has been done in the past with the reintroduction of Phelsuma Guentheri to Round Island something I am at least some what familiar with through my contact with the Durrell Wild Life Trust on the isle of Jersey in the English channel.

There are any number of species currently bred in the hobby that can be reintroduced back into the wild with a better than average chance of success. The challenge as always is having a safe environment to reintroduce them into.


----------



## Ed

Rain_Frog said:


> Ed, an old book I read in sixth grade ("Amphibians as Pets" that is now out of print, dating from the 1970s) specifically talked about how to care for A. zeteki. The picture was in B/W, but it was clearly an A. zeteki.
> 
> I remember the book clear as day, because sixth grade was when I got my first clawed frog and I read the book over and over again


Hi Doug,

Do you remember when it was published as I can't find a listing for it in used book lists...

If I remember correctly, zeteki was part of the A. varius group (which is a complex of species) and was at one point assigned to subspecific status... 
It was only split out recently (see 
Zippel, K.C., Ibáñez D., R., Lindquist, E.D., Richards, C.L., Jaramillo A., C.A., and Griffith, E.J. 2006. Implicaciones en la conservación de las ranas doradas de Panamá, asociadas con su revisión taxonómica. _Herpetotropicos_ 3(1): 29-39.) So the species you saw wasn't necessarily A. zeteki as it could have been any one of at least 5 distinct toads... 

Ed


----------



## Woodsman

Amphiaweb lists taking for the illegal pet trade as a threat to A. zeteki.

Richard.



Ed said:


> When did hobbyists work with Atelopus zeteki?
> 
> Ed


----------



## david.cravens

Ed said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> Do you remember when it was published as I can't find a listing for it in used book lists...
> 
> Ed


I think it might be the first one on this list with a publish date of 1973 if not maybe Doug will recognize author.

BookFinder.com: Search Results (Matching Titles)


----------



## Ed

This is getting off topic and its been covered several times before in other threads... 



mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I'll have to politely disagree with you on this one. The one advantage that reptiles and amphibians have over birds and mammals is that most if not all of their beaviors are instinctual as opposed to learned making for a much easier reintroduction into the wild when and if suitable habitat has been restored. This has been done in the past with the reintroduction of Phelsuma Guentheri to Round Island something I am at least some what familiar with through my contact with the Durrell Wild Life Trust on the isle of Jersey in the English channel.


Hi Roman,

You are making an apples and oranges comparision here as you are failing to look at the bigger picture. 
P. guentheri is not being maintained for repatriation by the hobby, it is an institution where reproductive records, inbreeding etc are being used and/or controlled. Unless something changed since my correspondences with them, thier collection of P. guentheri also were not housed in the same room as other species from widely disparate regions. 

And actually nothing in your example disproves the standard that none of the animals in the hobby are suitable for reintroduction... 

I would suggest getting a copy of the following JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Rapid genetic adaptation to captivity - Frankham - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library to review the challenges and look at how many of these the hobby at large is actually looking to deal with... 

As for the effects of genetic changes from captivity on behaviors, this has been widely studied in a number of species and the problem holds the same across taxa. These changes can be actively selected for (such as the domestic fox experiment ( see for a few examples, http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf) to unintentional behavioral changes (see http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~mem247/McPhee 2003 BC.pdf and http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross/FlemingandGross1993.pdf). The problem is that these changes don't have to be over long periods and tens of generatiions but can occur in a very short period of time (as another example see http://users.utu.fi/antvas/EvolAppl/heath2003.pdf) (and this is even before we start looking at phenotypical plasticity and/or epigenetics which can render species unfit for repatriation (as occured in the translocated populations of pupfish (see http://people.uncw.edu/lemas/publications/Lema, 2006.pdf )... 

I would also suggest aquiring a copy of Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild as it discusses some serious limitations on release/repatriation of animals. 

This is all before we even get to the issues with novel pathogens and other issues.. The hobby itself is not working to minimize these nor to maximize the genetic diversity of any of the animals in the hobby for the long-term. 


In theory the hobby could be a great reserve for species conservation but it would require significant changes in how things are done before we get to that point.. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Smashtoad

Below is my post to one of the original "Save the Frogs" threads from February of 2009...almost two years ago...



Smashtoad said:


> Let's just say, for arguments sake, that all of these anthropomorphical organizations get their way, and all of the frogs and the land they live on is finally protected...what do you think their next step would be?
> 
> No exotic pets of any kind for anyone.


It only took many of you two years to realize that these rosy-bespectacled utopiacs don't give one little hoot about our hobby...they care about feeling good about themselves...period. So many of the issues in our society today are wrapped up in this that it is literally maddening... 

Why do you guys think liberals give less to charitable organizations than conservatives and religious folks (a lot less than the religious, by the way)? It is very simple: they want to APPEAR as very caring, to both themselves and to others. They don't actually do it...they just cry about it in the public square.

Then, the I turned the subject to man-made Global Warming...why? It is very simple: Environmental movements like SOFBWSOFWO - Save Our Froggies Before We Stomp Our Feet and Wet Ourselves (a much more befitting name) are FUNDAMENTALLY linked to it. These people believe that man is literally destroying the planet, rather than just living on it and using what is here. 

They believe this because "scientists" funded by OUR MONEY are telling them it is true. Scientists have to have a cause or guess what? No more funding. This ain't rocket science, folks. 

These are the same "scientists" that, after making the biggest paleontological discovery in history (viable soft tissue, complete with red blood cells, inside a T-Rex femur), stopped talking about it in public because they can't explain how tissue survived 65 million years...maybe because it didn't?

Whew...my brain hurts. Class dismissed.


----------



## Ed

Woodsman said:


> Amphiaweb lists taking for the illegal pet trade as a threat to A. zeteki.
> 
> Richard.


 
Yes, but this cannot be used to claim that hobbyists are/were working with the species. A significant part of this is due to the status and history of this within the country of Panama. Golden frogs/toads are a symbol of prosperity and good fortune so it was very common for a long time for people in Panama to collect and keep them (displays in hotels, etc as well) as pets. There was no effort to breed the species but there was collection pressure as when one diet, another was caught to replace it. 
As the populations dropped, the practice slowed but did not stop until the situation became critical. This is not the same as hobbyists working with the species. 

There are a couple of records of smuggling on the books but none of those were in condition to survive despite massive triage efforts. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

david.cravens said:


> I think it might be the first one on this list with a publish date of 1973 if not maybe Doug will recognize author.
> 
> BookFinder.com: Search Results (Matching Titles)


 
If that is it, I'll pick up a copy. I'm interested in the history of the hobby.. (I have fish books that go back to the 1920s..).. 

Thanks
Ed


----------



## markpulawski

Woodsman.."I find it hard to believe that none of the other keepers here occasionally feel that the tanks we keep our frogs in are NOT a good approximation of the wild and that we do deprive them of a "free" life."
Richard I do feel this way many times, especially when I look at my 100 gallon tank with 4 frogs and think man that is small. I would love to have "rooms"..8 x 8 or so dedicated to species but when I hear the folks that went on the understory trip say there were 50 - 200 feet between individual frogs nothing in captivity can compare.
I do suggest though that when threatened with deforestation life in a glass box is better than no life at all. Creating balance is difficult, this community does offer the opportunity to those interested to find the best ways to keep frogs in captivity and give them a higher quality of captivity if that means anything. To completely eliminate the collection of WC frogs is a blanket statment that takes away from logical defense of frogs in the wild. There will always be circumstances in which collecting frogs from the wild is a good thing and will actually prolong many of those frogs lives. I am sure egg feeder populations boom and crash as resources shrink and the populations grow, regulated harvesting (in the right way) would likely benefit some of these populations. Areas coming under development should also be a collecting target for those wanting to save the animals that exist in that area even if only for captive management. 
Sweeping blanket statements usually infer a lack of truely understanding the circumstances, in some cases total protection yes, in others limted harvesting, in others collect them all before the encroachment eliminates their existance. That to me is an intelligent approach that is hard to argue....but yes there are many times i think keeping my frogs in what is a little box seems very selfish, I felt even more so about 5 WC Discus I had in that same 100 gallon tank.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> This is getting off topic and its been covered several times before in other threads...
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> You are making an apples and oranges comparision here as you are failing to look at the bigger picture.
> P. guentheri is not being maintained for repatriation by the hobby, it is an institution where reproductive records, inbreeding etc are being used and/or controlled. Unless something changed since my correspondences with them, thier collection of P. guentheri also were not housed in the same room as other species from widely disparate regions.
> 
> And actually nothing in your example disproves the standard that none of the animals in the hobby are suitable for reintroduction...
> 
> I would suggest getting a copy of the following JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Rapid genetic adaptation to captivity - Frankham - 2005 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library to review the challenges and look at how many of these the hobby at large is actually looking to deal with...
> 
> As for the effects of genetic changes from captivity on behaviors, this has been widely studied in a number of species and the problem holds the same across taxa. These changes can be actively selected for (such as the domestic fox experiment ( see for a few examples, http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf) to unintentional behavioral changes (see http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~mem247/McPhee 2003 BC.pdf and http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross/FlemingandGross1993.pdf). The problem is that these changes don't have to be over long periods and tens of generatiions but can occur in a very short period of time (as another example see http://users.utu.fi/antvas/EvolAppl/heath2003.pdf) (and this is even before we start looking at phenotypical plasticity and/or epigenetics which can render species unfit for repatriation (as occured in the translocated populations of pupfish (see http://people.uncw.edu/lemas/publications/Lema, 2006.pdf )...
> 
> I would also suggest aquiring a copy of Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild as it discusses some serious limitations on release/repatriation of animals.
> 
> This is all before we even get to the issues with novel pathogens and other issues.. The hobby itself is not working to minimize these nor to maximize the genetic diversity of any of the animals in the hobby for the long-term.
> 
> 
> In theory the hobby could be a great reserve for species conservation but it would require significant changes in how things are done before we get to that point..
> 
> Some comments,
> 
> Ed


Ed,

The original groups of Guentheri were collected in the late 60's and early 70's and initially housed with a number of species they would not be exposed to in the wild Zonosaurus and Gerrhasaurus for instance so they were indeed exposed to pathogens not encountered in the wild. A number of animals were also aquired from the hobbyist community in the late 70's and early 80's to supplement the breeding stock. As for the inbreeding issues it has been proven in a number of species ( I am particularly thinking Paroedura Pictus) that species can be inbred to F16 or better with minimal to no defects as long as the keeper is ruthless when it comes to not allowing any animals with defects to breed back into the captiv population.

The point I am trying to make is that if the reintroduction of big cats and great apes(both species where almost all their behavior is learned) back into the wild is considered viable. Think how much easier it would be to reintroduce mantellas and darts.


----------



## Ed

markpulawski said:


> Richard I do feel this way many times, especially when I look at my 100 gallon tank with 4 frogs and think man that is small. I would love to have "rooms"..8 x 8 or so dedicated to species but when I hear the folks that went on the understory trip say there were 50 - 200 feet between individual frogs nothing in captivity can compare.


We should be careful in making the connection that this is the amount of space they need as distance between animals can be due to several things (observer bias for example) but is probably significantly affected by resource availability. This can be manipulated in captivity which is why it is very difficult to equate these observation to husbandry needs. 



markpulawski said:


> I do suggest though that when threatened with deforestation life in a glass box is better than no life at all. Creating balance is difficult, this community does offer the opportunity to those interested to find the best ways to keep frogs in captivity and give them a higher quality of captivity if that means anything. To completely eliminate the collection of WC frogs is a blanket statment that takes away from logical defense of frogs in the wild. There will always be circumstances in which collecting frogs from the wild is a good thing and will actually prolong many of those frogs lives. I am sure egg feeder populations boom and crash as resources shrink and the populations grow, regulated harvesting (in the right way) would likely benefit some of these populations. Areas coming under development should also be a collecting target for those wanting to save the animals that exist in that area even if only for captive management.
> Sweeping blanket statements usually infer a lack of truely understanding the circumstances, in some cases total protection yes, in others limted harvesting, in others collect them all before the encroachment eliminates their existance. That to me is an intelligent approach that is hard to argue....but yes there are many times i think keeping my frogs in what is a little box seems very selfish, I felt even more so about 5 WC Discus I had in that same 100 gallon tank.


Pretty good summary.. but again, if they are collected before the habitat is wiped out and then not managed, then they are extinct either way... 


Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> The original groups of Guentheri were collected in the late 60's and early 70's and initially housed with a number of species they would not be exposed to in the wild Zonosaurus and Gerrhasaurus for instance so they were indeed exposed to pathogens not encountered in the wild. A number of animals were also aquired from the hobbyist community in the late 70's and early 80's to supplement the breeding stock. As for the inbreeding issues it has been proven in a number of species ( I am particularly thinking Paroedura Pictus) that species can be inbred to F16 or better with minimal to no defects as long as the keeper is ruthless when it comes to not allowing any animals with defects to breed back into the captiv population.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that if the reintroduction of big cats and great apes(both species where almost all their behavior is learned) back into the wild is considered viable. Think how much easier it would be to reintroduce mantellas and darts.


Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.. I strongly suggest reviewing the literature I provided as you are making some false assumptions on the ability to repatriate animals. You are assuming that genetic behaviors are unlikely to change. This has not been shown to be the case and it can occur very rapidly. It has occured in one generation in some fish species or even less (such as eggs collected from wild fish and reared in hatcheries). 

With respect to the Phelsuma... again this is an institution that can do a better job of screening the animals before release/repatriation for pathogens (not to mention it is a very limited habitat) and I suspect that if you look at thier records, thier program was handled to sustain the maximal allele frequency. Can you name one species in the USA hobby that is being handled in that manner? 
Also how did P. guentheri get into the European hobby as the country of origin prohibited all access to the island without specific permits (see for example the accounts provided by Durrel in his book... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Actually if you are being ruthless in preventing animals with defects from breeding then you are actively selecting for traits and a direct loss of genetic diversity. 
In real conservation programs you cannot make the distinction that there are no positive alleles associated with the defect...

If you start with 50 unrelated animals, you should be able to easily maintain a species for 100 years... 16 generations cannot be used as an indication that it was being done right...


----------



## RMB

Here's my observation of this fellow/ his organization. 

I ran into him at a herp show in San Jose. Stopped at his booth, talked for a few minutes about cythrid and pesticides. I said to myself "cool, a voice for the frogs, to educate people about their worst threats". I bought a shirt, mostly because it was 5$ and I go through lots of shirts. I watched his presentation, which, while entertaining, didn't seem very informative. I also noticed that while he knew a lot about frogs in general, he wasn't very knowledgeable about darts and misquoted a couple facts. Little did I know at the time that he considered hobbyists as one of those threats. Of course he wouldn't have come out and said he was against the hobby while at a show for hobbyists whom he apparently thinks are cruel slavemasters. I feel like I was given a delicious taco only to be told later it was kitten meat with booger sauce... Now when I wear the shirt I have to give people a disclaimer that I do care about the welfare of amphibs in general, but I don't really support this guys methods or goals.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.. I strongly suggest reviewing the literature I provided as you are making some false assumptions on the ability to repatriate animals. You are assuming that genetic behaviors are unlikely to change. This has not been shown to be the case and it can occur very rapidly. It has occured in one generation in some fish species or even less (such as eggs collected from wild fish and reared in hatcheries).
> 
> With respect to the Phelsuma... again this is an institution that can do a better job of screening the animals before release/repatriation for pathogens (not to mention it is a very limited habitat) and I suspect that if you look at thier records, thier program was handled to sustain the maximal allele frequency. Can you name one species in the USA hobby that is being handled in that manner?
> Also how did P. guentheri get into the European hobby as the country of origin prohibited all access to the island without specific permits (see for example the accounts provided by Durrel in his book...
> 
> Ed


Many of the original Guentheri were smuggled out undoubtedly. And again I'm not trying to make light of some of the challenges involved in the reintroduction of animals to the wild. However I stand by my statement that reptiles and amphibians present significantly less challenges in reintroduction than do mammals and birds. I also take issue with your statement that a species becomes effectively extinct the moment its habitat is destroyed unless kept in a very managed manner. That is certaily the ideal scenario but in my eyes as long as even one breeding pair of a species is held in captivity there is still hope for its survival. Slim but hope none the less.

Regards,
Roman


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Actually if you are being ruthless in preventing animals with defects from breeding then you are actively selecting for traits and a direct loss of genetic diversity.
> In real conservation programs you cannot make the distinction that there are no positive alleles associated with the defect...
> 
> If you start with 50 unrelated animals, you should be able to easily maintain a species for 100 years... 16 generations cannot be used as an indication that it was being done right...


True but the records in question with the Paroedura were based on a founder stock of 2.4 animals. And I think one of our main points of disagreement/misunderstanding is the assertion that an animal needs to replicate the original wild stock perfectly as opposed to a fair approximation being better than nothing. We will always have a hard to impossible time in replicatins the exact genetic diversity in the founder stock. However there are a number of examples where similar gene stock was introduced for the continued survivl of the species. For home grown example of the above see Red Wolves and Florida Panthers but of which have been supplemented by stock from similar subspecies in the interest of long term survival.


----------



## JJuchems

Rain_Frog said:


> Ed, an old book I read in sixth grade ("Amphibians as Pets" that is now out of print, dating from the 1970s) specifically talked about how to care for A. zeteki. The picture was in B/W, but it was clearly an A. zeteki.
> 
> I remember the book clear as day, because sixth grade was when I got my first clawed frog and I read the book over and over again


The book is: 
AMPHIBIANS AS PETS by Georg and Lisbeth Zappler 1973. Illustrated with photographs and line drawings by Richard Marshall. 160 pages


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Many of the original Guentheri were smuggled out undoubtedly. And again I'm not trying to make light of some of the challenges involved in the reintroduction of animals to the wild. However I stand by my statement that reptiles and amphibians present significantly less challenges in reintroduction than do mammals and birds. I also take issue with your statement that a species becomes effectively extinct the moment its habitat is destroyed unless kept in a very managed manner. That is certaily the ideal scenario but in my eyes as long as even one breeding pair of a species is held in captivity there is still hope for its survival. Slim but hope none the less.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman


Roman,
it is clear you haven't looked at the literature I linked. I deliberately linked the issues with fish as they are a good example of why what you are claiming as easy isn't.... I haven't even been discussing the issues with primates or great cats. Genetically encoded behaviors can change in as little as a generation in captivity... 

So if every captive and wild angelfish (P. scalare and P. altum) except a pair of albino blushing veiled pearlscaled angelfish, that is hope for survivial of the species in the wild?


----------



## Ed

JJuchems said:


> The book is:
> AMPHIBIANS AS PETS by Georg and Lisbeth Zappler 1973. Illustrated with photographs and line drawings by Richard Marshall. 160 pages


Thanks

Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> True but the records in question with the Paroedura were based on a founder stock of 2.4 animals. And I think one of our main points of disagreement/misunderstanding is the assertion that an animal needs to replicate the original wild stock perfectly as opposed to a fair approximation being better than nothing. We will always have a hard to impossible time in replicatins the exact genetic diversity in the founder stock. However there are a number of examples where similar gene stock was introduced for the continued survivl of the species. For home grown example of the above see Red Wolves and Florida Panthers but of which have been supplemented by stock from similar subspecies in the interest of long term survival.


The goal is maintain the genetic diversity as close as possible to the original stock. It would have been possible (and there are mathmatical formula that would provide the data on how long this could be kept up in a properly set up program) however as soon as you start denying animals the ability to breed based on a subjective criteria you are directly affecting the genetic diversity of the group and once you start this occurs rapidly. If culling is required it should be handled on a random basis with no judgement made on the fitness of an animal..

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Roman,
> it is clear you haven't looked at the literature I linked. I deliberately linked the issues with fish as they are a good example of why what you are claiming as easy isn't.... I haven't even been discussing the issues with primates or great cats. Genetically encoded behaviors can change in as little as a generation in captivity...
> 
> So if every captive and wild angelfish (P. scalare and P. altum) except a pair of albino blushing veiled pearlscaled angelfish, that is hope for survivial of the species in the wild?


I haven't but I certainly plan on it. My point is very simple. In an ideal world we should always strive for the best case outcome which is the original genetic diversity with original behavior patterns. However sometimes one is forced to make compromises depending on the circumstances at hand. If a species is wiped out due to habitat destruction but some breeding stock remains in captivity there is still a chance for reintroduction no matter how remote. If the same occurs and there is no stock in captivity the chance becomes zero. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my eyes isn't even a .000001% chance of successful reintroduction better than no chance at all?

And to use you angel fish example of the extreme inbred pair was all we had left we should still breed them maintain them and try to reintroduce them into the wild if feasible in the hope that there is a slight chance that they will adapt and the predatory pressures bring back the original coloration after a few generations. Or should be just through our hands up in the air and just chalk the species of for posterity?


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> The goal is maintain the genetic diversity as close as possible to the original stock. It would have been possible (and there are mathmatical formula that would provide the data on how long this could be kept up in a properly set up program) however as soon as you start denying animals the ability to breed based on a subjective criteria you are directly affecting the genetic diversity of the group and once you start this occurs rapidly. If culling is required it should be handled on a random basis with no judgement made on the fitness of an animal..
> 
> Ed


So you are saying that animals that would have no chance of surviving in the wild due to physical defects should still be allowed to breed back into the blood stream? How would that lead the most natural representation of the species possible?


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> So you are saying that animals that would have no chance of surviving in the wild due to physical defects should still be allowed to breed back into the blood stream? How would that lead the most natural representation of the species possible?


You are mistaking the idea that the genes coding for the defect is 
1) always a negative 
2) has no beneficial genes linked to it 

In the case of number one.. look at the survivial benefits conveyed by being heterozygous for hemophilia if you line in a malaria zone. Unless you can validate that the defect does not convey any benefits in a heterozygous form (for survivial in the wild) or is not associated with any genes that are associated with benefit for survivial in the wild, you cannot subjectively cull the animals. This is even more of an issue if the rest of the genes carried by that animal are underrepresented in the breeding program. 
This is why they cannot be culled solely on a subjective basis. If you are culling in this manner you are actively selecting the animals for a visual phenotype. This is essence no different than breeding an animal for certain traits (to use an example) such as floppy ears or tameness. 

This is covered in the conservation literature if you want to look for it. 

How sure are you that P. guentheri were added from the pet trade? You may want to recontact and ask about that.... 


Ed


----------



## jkooiman

Perhaps pertinent, perhaps not, but seeing as the thread is totally off-track anyhow...
Correct me if I'm wrong....The European Wisent and Prehistoric European native wild horse are essentially man made recreations of "extinct" animals. I believe there is a huge reserve in the Netherlands that attempts to re-create prehistoric Europe.
Mustangs in the American West are often found with faint stripes on their hindquarters/legs etc., indicating a "wild type" reversion.
Chickens invariably revert to an "wild-type" junglefowl appearance over time in the wild.
Feral pigs very rapidly develop a drastic reversion in physical characteristics in the wild.
I'm sure a great many more examples exist of "captive" animals reverting back to at least a semblance of their original ancestor.

All very rough comparisons to an albino angelfish,and doesn't really cover the genetic bottleneck issue, but I was curious. Sorry to continue to drift off-topic. JVK


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> You are mistaking the idea that the genes coding for the defect is
> 1) always a negative
> 2) has no beneficial genes linked to it
> 
> In the case of number one.. look at the survivial benefits conveyed by being heterozygous for hemophilia if you line in a malaria zone. Unless you can validate that the defect does not convey any benefits in a heterozygous form (for survivial in the wild) or is not associated with any genes that are associated with benefit for survivial in the wild, you cannot subjectively cull the animals. This is even more of an issue if the rest of the genes carried by that animal are underrepresented in the breeding program.
> This is why they cannot be culled solely on a subjective basis. If you are culling in this manner you are actively selecting the animals for a visual phenotype. This is essence no different than breeding an animal for certain traits (to use an example) such as floppy ears or tameness.
> 
> This is covered in the conservation literature if you want to look for it.
> 
> How sure are you that P. guentheri were added from the pet trade? You may want to recontact and ask about that....
> 
> 
> Ed


 The defects that I am referring for cullling purposes are visible physical ones such as deformed jaws, mishappen limbs and other factors which would inhibit survival in the wild either by minimizing it's ability to feed or avoid predators.

In terms of the Guentheri I am pretty confident that at least some of the founder stock came from private collections unfortunately since Gerald's death in 95 I have no contacts within the trust that I have a good enough relationship with to be able to get that information.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> I haven't but I certainly plan on it. My point is very simple. In an ideal world we should always strive for the best case outcome which is the original genetic diversity with original behavior patterns. However sometimes one is forced to make compromises depending on the circumstances at hand. If a species is wiped out due to habitat destruction but some breeding stock remains in captivity there is still a chance for reintroduction no matter how remote. If the same occurs and there is no stock in captivity the chance becomes zero. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my eyes isn't even a .000001% chance of successful reintroduction better than no chance at all?


It isn't breeding stock for release unless it is managed for genetic diversity and managed for biosecurity (the P. guentheri program was also started before the information we now know to be available (like risks of cross infection of feeders by viruses carried by herps (see Experimental infection of crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus) with an invertebrate iridovirus isolated from a high-casqued chameleon (Chamaeleo hoehnelii) -- Weinmann et al. 19 (6): 674 -- Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation)). Even if you manage the gentic diversity you can still end up with an animal that cannot be reintroduced into the natural habitat (see the pupfish example) due to changes in phenotypic variations. 




mantisdragon91 said:


> And to use you angel fish example of the extreme inbred pair was all we had left we should still breed them maintain them and try to reintroduce them into the wild if feasible in the hope that there is a slight chance that they will adapt and the predatory pressures bring back the original coloration after a few generations. Or should be just through our hands up in the air and just chalk the species of for posterity?


 
You can't make the distinction of inbred between the angels used in the above example and herps bred by the hobby as they have the same level of documentation showing thier genetic diversity. 

If the fish can't survive in the enviroment are they the same species any more? This is kind of like saying a dog is still a wolf... 
Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> The defects that I am referring for cullling purposes are visible physical ones such as deformed jaws, mishappen limbs and other factors which would inhibit survival in the wild either by minimiing it's ability to feed or avoid predators.
> 
> In terms of the Guentheri I am pretty confident that at least some of the founder stock came from private collections unfortunately since Gerald's death in 95 I have no contacts within the trust that I have a good enough relationship with to be able to get that information.


This still is making the assumption that 
1) the heterozygous form is not beneficial
2) there are no linked genes that are beneficial.. 

The literature is quite clear.. culling them based on subjective basis reduces genetic diversity.

I think you are misremembering the sources of the guentheri....


----------



## Rain_Frog

> The book is:
> AMPHIBIANS AS PETS by Georg and Lisbeth Zappler 1973. Illustrated with photographs and line drawings by Richard Marshall. 160 pages


Thanks a ton-- I googled all over and couldn't find it. If I find it, I'm buying it for nostalgia.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> This still is making the assumption that
> 1) the heterozygous form is not beneficial
> 2) there are no linked genes that are beneficial..
> 
> The literature is quite clear.. culling them based on subjective basis reduces genetic diversity.
> 
> I think you are misremembering the sources of the guentheri....


How would it be beneficial to the survival of the species for an animal to have physical deformities caused by inbreeding?

Regarding the Guentheri the last communications I had with Gerald were around 94 via written corespondence. Since his books played a very early influence on my life I had written him a number of letters in the 80s and eary 90s and he was kind enough to respond. I distinctly remember him mentioning that some of the Guentheri were aquired from Dutch Hobbyists. The challenge would be getting a straight answer from the folks now running his Trust, since people have a tendency to have fuzzy memories when it comes to some of the more unsavory aspects of the collection process back in the 60s and 70s.


----------



## Philsuma

If anyone has a question about _phelsuma_ and any history / U.S trade origins....contact Dr. Tytle. I'm sure he can answer any question.

Tim Tytle Lizards | Home


----------



## Philsuma

Rain_Frog said:


> Thanks a ton-- I googled all over and couldn't find it. If I find it, I'm buying it for nostalgia.


Amphibians as pets: Amazon.co.uk: Georg Zappler: Books

I think the U.S version of Amazon has it too...


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> How would it be beneficial to the survival of the species for an animal to have physical deformities caused by inbreeding?


You are placing a subjective value judgement that the deformation is the beginning and end of it all. If you breed the defect out of the population you are not removing just one gene. You are removing complexes of genes that are present in the wild population which gives some indication that they are of value to the wild population. 
By breeding out the defects you are also changing the whole genotype and phenotype of the population. If you are looking at a population that can be released you don't want to subjectively change the genetics... as to do so you are selectively speeding artificial selection. This changes the genotype with resulting negative consequences for fitness. This is no different than actively selecting for traits as an example selecting the traits that would eventually result in a bubble eye goldfish from a comet... 

You may also be interested in these articles as well.. 


JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl...dlife_conservation_and_animal_temperament.pdf





mantisdragon91 said:


> Regarding the Guentheri the last communications I had with Gerald were around 94 via written corespondence. Since his books played a very early influence on my life I had written him a number of letters in the 80s and eary 90s and he was kind enough to respond. I distinctly remember him mentioning that some of the Guentheri were aquired from Dutch Hobbyists. The challenge would be getting a straight answer from the folks now running his Trust, since people have a tendency to have fuzzy memories when it comes to some of the more unsavory aspects of the collection process back in the 60s and 70s.


If you won't accept a response from those who are currently working there, then it renders this example moot. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Philsuma said:


> If anyone has a question about _phelsuma_ and any history / U.S trade origins....contact Dr. Tytle. I'm sure he can answer any question.
> 
> Tim Tytle Lizards | Home


 
Hi Phil,

We aren't discussing the US hobby but the European hobby... This is one of the cases where not only is access to the location is very difficult but access is strictly controlled by the Mauritian goverment. 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> We aren't discussing the US hobby but the European hobby... This is one of the cases where not only is access to the location is very difficult but access is strictly controlled by the Mauritian goverment.
> 
> Ed


Keep in mind that Mauritius only gained its indepedence from the UK in 1968 and it is not out of the realm of possibility that Guentheri were collected from there prior to the country becoming indepedent either through legal or illegal means.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Keep in mind that Mauritius only gained its indepedence from the UK in 1968 and it is not out of the realm of possibility that Guentheri were collected from there prior to the country becoming indepedent either through legal or illegal means.


Then they have been extinct in the hobby for a very very long time.....


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed,

I think the root of our disagreement may have to do with our respective backgrounds you come from Academia while I come from Corporate. I tend to have the same disagreements with my fiancee on occassion. You guys would like best case scenarios, no deviation from the mean and perfect documentation  I'll settle for a successful outcome now matter how it is arrived at.

To give you a real case example if Mantellas became extinct in the wild and there were few if any animals in Zoos or scientific collections do you think they would turn up their nose up at breeding groups in private hands, just because all the proper gene and behavior management protocols were followed, or do you think the scientific community would jump at the chance to get their hands on these animals for possible future reintroduction into the wild?


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Then they have been extinct in the hobby for a very very long time.....


They became extinct in the hobby because the few animals in private collections were donated to the Jersey Trust to help round out their breeding colonies. This was a one way trip though because much like a number of other species where founder stock came from the hobbyist community none of the subsequent offspring were release back to the community where they came from.

I believe the same thing is happening in this country as we speak with species such as Fiji Iguanas, San Francisco garter snakes and Golden frogs.


----------



## Xan Stepp

> In the case of number one.. look at the survivial benefits conveyed by being heterozygous for hemophilia if you line in a malaria zone.


Ed,
Do you mean heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia? I was under the impression that all cases of hemophilia (in males at least) were heterozygous.

Xan


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> They became extinct in the hobby because the few animals in private collections were donated to the Jersey Trust to help round out their breeding colonies. This was a one way trip though because much like a number of other species where founder stock came from the hobbyist community none of the subsequent offspring were release back to the community where they came from.
> 
> I believe the same thing is happening in this country as we speak with species such as Fiji Iguanas, San Francisco garter snakes and Golden frogs.


Roman,

If you can't produce documentation to this effect, then this is pure speculation as to thier sudden absence in the trade (assuming with no proof they were ever in it). 

Access to Round Island has been resticted and monitored since at least 1975. Durrell didn't collect the geckos until 1976 (if I remember correctly).

I also find it interesting that you are claiming that there are public donations of A. zeteki to institutions in the US... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Xan Stepp said:


> Ed,
> Do you mean heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia? I was under the impression that all cases of hemophilia (in males at least) were heterozygous.
> 
> Xan


 
Thanks for catching that Xan, you are correct. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I think the root of our disagreement may have to do with our respective backgrounds you come from Academia while I come from Corporate. I tend to have the same disagreements with my fiancee on occassion. You guys would like best case scenarios, no deviation from the mean and perfect documentation  I'll settle for a successful outcome now matter how it is arrived at.
> 
> To give you a real case example if Mantellas became extinct in the wild and there were few if any animals in Zoos or scientific collections do you think they would turn up their nose up at breeding groups in private hands, just because all the proper gene and behavior management protocols were followed, or do you think the scientific community would jump at the chance to get their hands on these animals for possible future reintroduction into the wild?


I also have almost 20 years of actively working with these sort of conservation programs under my belt.. so I have a very deep understanding of what it really means and needs... 

If the hobby maintains the same standards as we see today for captive populations, then there would be no interest in using them for repopulation. There would be interest in using them for display and examples and potentially other studies but I can say that with great assurance based on cases that have alread occured such as the reason the Dusky Seaside Sparrow was allowed to go extinct due to a refusal to allow releases due to some of the reasons we are discussing. 
This was also the problem with the pupfish example I gave you above... the fish from the captive assurance populations were unsuitable for release if the wild population went extinct... This is also ignoring the whole explosion of the information we are accumulating on the dangers of novel pathogen exposures. 

Your position is predicated that the frogs in the hobby would still be the same as the wild animals and not be the captive equivalent of the angel fish in the example I used above. I am not looking for a perfect outcome but your position is not only overly optimistic but completely unsupported by the literature and prior examples. 


Ed


----------



## boabab95

Ok, going back to the original reason of this thread, If he wants the hobby gone, what are we suppose to do with the frogs? send them all back to the wild (where they'll likely die of chytrid?). kill them all??? is a mass murder of frogs better then not having them at all??? no, no it's not. I don't think this nutcase has put much thought into what would happen if the hobby was to be stopped.


----------



## Philsuma

Ed said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> We aren't discussing the US hobby but the European hobby... This is one of the cases where not only is access to the location is very difficult but access is strictly controlled by the Mauritian goverment.
> 
> Ed


If it involves the Gecko species _phelsuma_....I'll bet you $100.00 Dr. Tytle has your answer or gets it to you poste haste......no matter what continent we are on / talking about.


----------



## Philsuma

boabab95 said:


> Ok, going back to the original reason of this thread, If he wants the hobby gone, what are we suppose to do with the frogs? send them all back to the wild (where they'll likely die of chytrid?). kill them all??? is a mass murder of frogs better then not having them at all??? no, no it's not. I don't think this nutcase has put much thought into what would happen if the hobby was to be stopped.


Its all about $$$$......as you can deduce from his website.

Who is gonna pony up cash for his "work" ? Hobbyists who happen to be conservationist oriented and sympathetic ? Nope. We don't have that kind of dough.

The Rich people that sit at home and read books, Wall street journal, watch Animal Planet on their sat dishes and look for causes to donate money to for various "altruistic" reasons.


----------



## fleshfrombone

boabab95 said:


> Ok, going back to the original reason of this thread, If he wants the hobby gone, what are we suppose to do with the frogs? send them all back to the wild (where they'll likely die of chytrid?). kill them all??? is a mass murder of frogs better then not having them at all??? no, no it's not. I don't think this nutcase has put much thought into what would happen if the hobby was to be stopped.


Well if his organization is anything like PETA they have no problem killing animals if that's what it takes to keep people from owning them.



Philsuma said:


> Its all about $$$$......as you can deduce from his website.
> 
> Who is gonna pony up cash for his "work" ? Hobbyists who happen to be conservationist oriented and sympathetic ? Nope. We don't have that kind of dough.
> 
> The Rich people that sit at home and read books, Wall street journal, watch Animal Planet on their sat dishes and look for causes to donate money to for various "altruistic" reasons.


Hey buddy, we all know the elitists know what's best for the rest of us unfortunate dumbasses. We need to just sit back and trust that they know how to best spend our money and decide how to live our lives for us.


----------



## Ed

Philsuma said:


> Its all about $$$$......as you can deduce from his website.
> 
> Who is gonna pony up cash for his "work" ? Hobbyists who happen to be conservationist oriented and sympathetic ? Nope. We don't have that kind of dough.
> 
> The Rich people that sit at home and read books, Wall street journal, watch Animal Planet on their sat dishes and look for causes to donate money to for various "altruistic" reasons.


Actually it depends on the number of people that donate to thier cause.. If you get enough people donating then the dollar value can readily exceed that from larger doners. 

As an example a certain Zoo set a wishing well up in thier building to help with conservation and enrichment programs. With just pocket change they were able to easily collect more than $10,000 a year from that sole souce using just pocket change.... 

It all boils down to the numbers and what the donation levels are... I would also keep in mind, that while they are happy to take the money from the hobby, we are not thier target market. Instead it is the average person who likes frogs and wants to help with thier conservation, we are at best a fringe market. Instead, they want to target the people who like frogs but have little or no interest in keeping them inside thier home. Pushing the idea that most of the funding is from the _bourgeoisie or intelligentisia _is probably a mistake... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

It is pretty obvious that they have a marketing plan designed to use a shock to engage the reader to support them. This is analgous to the use of the seal clubbing pictures used by some groups back in the 1970s to generate income from the public.

Ed


----------



## fleshfrombone

Ed said:


> It is pretty obvious that they have a marketing plan designed to use a shock to engage the reader to support them. This is analgous to the use of the seal clubbing pictures used by some groups back in the 1970s to generate income from the public.
> 
> Ed


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> Who is gonna pony up cash for his "work" ? Hobbyists who happen to be conservationist oriented and sympathetic ?



In general, i wouldn't call the reptile hobby "conservationist oriented and sympathetic". And the same seems to be true with this hobby


----------



## sports_doc

I have _very_ mixed feelings about this debate.

Yes, I want to see the 'wild' preserved, no doubt. Who here doesnt?

But,
I personally believe the biggest threat is land use, _not_ WC collection. Sure, some # of animals are taken, but generally from areas close to roads/human populations.

And, as the population expands its hunger for cattle, wood, land etc, habitat will cont to be permanently altered faster then the loss from WC collection. U can believe that as truth!

Cant we also make a _small_ argument that if we _are good_ breeders, we can supply WC demand by breeding these holy grail frogs ourselves?

If the hobby could set up operations like UE in Peru, where [yes, btw they start with WC collected animals- shock] set up breeding programs and supply you will all your needs as CB animals. Whoohoo. Only problem is, this is the only program of its kind.

Who here is going to pay for a smuggled benedicta, veradero imi, bassleri now?? when you can just order CB clean animals from UE...right? 
ah ha, so it works to collect WC animals, breed them and supply the hobby....

So, yes, we DO need some initial supply of WC, and yes we can supply hobby demands from them.

The problem is that not everyone knows the CB rare stuff is available, who to ask and how to get it. It's a big dirty secret for some reason. But when some "Farm Raised" BS shipment comes available everyone jumps to buy these animals, and MOST perish within a year, I've noticed. How dare you? ha.

How many bought all those imported Mantella last year?? Bet many of them are dead already, you can count on that. While there were breeders in the US producing them from old stock in big numbers already. How dare you?

Now this STF guy is raising money while we sit here and type and argue [amongst ourselves too] but DO nothing to help ourselves. We are a team...in this together....

[sent from my satellite system and viewed on my 20" HD monitor from my luxury oak desk chair, with my Wall Street Journal at my side Phil] DUH

S


----------



## Jason

Not only will project like UE help with decreasing the need for WC frogs, but it may give land owners another reason to save the original rain forest land and still be able to farm (frogs not cattle or human consumption foods). Here is a great project summary on Poison Dart Frog Ranching to Protect Rainforest and Alleviate Poverty.

Untitled

Click the "Project Document for CEO Approval (Revised)" at the bottom. I beleive this is the INIBICO project.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Roman,
> 
> If you can't produce documentation to this effect, then this is pure speculation as to thier sudden absence in the trade (assuming with no proof they were ever in it).
> 
> Access to Round Island has been resticted and monitored since at least 1975. Durrell didn't collect the geckos until 1976 (if I remember correctly).
> 
> I also find it interesting that you are claiming that there are public donations of A. zeteki to institutions in the US...
> 
> Ed


I distinctly remember getting correspodence from Gerald Durrell stating that a small number of Guentheri were donated to the trust by hobbyists in Rotterdam and Nimjen. Some were older end of life animals but there were also at least one and maybe more reproductive pairs. Not sure what he would have to gain by lying about something like that. 

There have been multiple cases of hobbyists in this country donating animals to zoological institutions yet to gain surplus offspring from the zoological community is like pulling teeth. What currently happens to all the surplus golden frogs, San Francisco garters and Fiji Island Iguanas that zoos are currently producing? All these species breed rather freely in captivity yet have there ever been any released to private hobbyists?

The challenge is that all these associations like PETA and the nut ball at Save the Frogs are given a nod and a wink by the Zoological Community as opposed to them standing up and saying you know there is a hard core segment within the private hobbyist community that is having great success in propogating species in captivity and they should be encouraged and suppourted as oppossed to vilified and marginalized. Cooperation is a two way street, but unfortunately at the present it seems like the flow of animals, funds and support only flows in one direction.


----------



## Philsuma

Brotherly Monkey said:


> In general, i wouldn't call the reptile hobby "conservationist oriented and sympathetic". And the same seems to be true with this hobby


Like most things....some people are...some aren't.

The frog hobby is MORE conservation oriented than the "general" Reptile hobby IMO - having been in both.


----------



## Philsuma

sports_doc said:


> [sent from my satellite system and viewed on my 20" HD monitor from my luxury oak desk chair, with my Wall Street Journal at my side Phil] DUH
> 
> S


I knew it ! You bourgeois *@#$ You forgot the 52 inch plasma in the next room.

I don't disagree with anything you said.

We have to crawl before we can walk though. We can do one thing pretty easily though....right off that bat. Allow reviews and proper information to be posted about the bad guys. The retail stores that are horrible, disgusting and unclean. The smugglers. The Wholesalers and jobbers who keep 40 pumilio in a wooden rabbit hutch on 3 year old spagnum . The flippers who buy up true hobbyist stock and deceive. The worst countires like Madagascar - far worse than Panama.

We need to fight the battle rationally and sequentially.

W/C frogs are not the problem in and of themselves. We all know that.


----------



## leuc11

First of all destroying our hobby is a stupid decision. Two, keeping frogs as slaves? I think captive life is perfect for a frog I mean no food shortage no danger all your needs in one place I mean what else does a frog need besides the fact that they dont have a mass amount of room to hop in. and all those species especially PDF's are captive bred now. I mean arnt people and hobbiests like you and me trying to destroy kytrid and stop the destuction of frog habitats. and were doing a favor to arnt we by keeping frogs were not only increaseing the captive population but were learning more and more about them and that can help to. Why shut down our one hobby that means so much to us and lets us escape our hard working lives to be with something we truly care about and most of us cannot live without

__________________________________________________
~Bailey


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> I distinctly remember getting correspodence from Gerald Durrell stating that a small number of Guentheri were donated to the trust by hobbyists in Rotterdam and Nimjen. Some were older end of life animals but there were also at least one and maybe more reproductive pairs. Not sure what he would have to gain by lying about something like that.


He simply could have misremembered... think about this logically... you are saying based on a extrapolation of a personal communication, the reason that there aren't any P. guentheri in the hobby anymore Iif there ever were) is because they were all donated to the Channel Island trust.. those supposed animals in turn were collected from an island that is difficult to access, has restricted access by the local goverment, has been under fairly constant surveys and analysis since 1975.. and all of that for a largish, dull colored (duller in color than adult P. standingi), nocturnal gecko... that isn't even restricted in trade (it is CITES II not CITES I)... 

In any case this discussion is moot as you have stated that you do not trust anyone at Channel Island to provide the truth.. 



mantisdragon91 said:


> There have been multiple cases of hobbyists in this country donating animals to zoological institutions yet to gain surplus offspring from the zoological community is like pulling teeth. What currently happens to all the surplus golden frogs, San Francisco garters and Fiji Island Iguanas that zoos are currently producing? All these species breed rather freely in captivity yet have there ever been any released to private hobbyists?


Roman, I wish you would bother to become educated on an issue before spouting off on it.. If you are attacking zoos for not selling animals of the above listed species then you are severely lacking in information on the topic. 


1) Atelopus zeteki are prohibited from being released to the non-AZA institutions at the specific requirements of the country of Panama. This is specified as part of the conditions on the CITES research import permits... There is also a requirement by the goverment of Panama to persecute any that show up in non-AZA hands.. this is to prevent another example of what occured with A. castenoticus.. (how many people started counting when they read the comment on zeteki???)

2) USF&W prohibits virtually all USA Zoos and other institutions outside of San Francisco from holding females. In any case I'm not sure where you got your data that the Zoos are breeding them in any numbers.. I suggest you look at the ISIS inventories.. there have been no reproductions in any reporting institution in the last 12 months (see ISIS :: Find Animals). 

3) I haven't bothered to look at the situation or permit status of Fiji Island Iguanas so I can't refute or confirm that one at all. 



mantisdragon91 said:


> The challenge is that all these associations like PETA and the nut ball at Save the Frogs are given a nod and a wink by the Zoological Community as opposed to them standing up and saying you know there is a hard core segment within the private hobbyist community that is having great success in propogating species in captivity and they should be encouraged and suppourted as oppossed to vilified and marginalized. Cooperation is a two way street, but unfortunately at the present it seems like the flow of animals, funds and support only flows in one direction.


Actually those groups are not given a nod and a wink by Zoos.. those groups are just as much out to put zoos out of business as they are the hobby. If you think that they get a pass.. you really are lacking in information. 

There are segments in the Zoo industry that have no problems with the hobby and see it as a resource.. 
I'm not going to get into a huge discussion on this as you currently aren't into looking at evidence (as shown in the discussion where I cited relevent literature) but are working off emotion and opinion. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

sports_doc said:


> But,
> I personally believe the biggest threat is land use, _not_ WC collection. Sure, some # of animals are taken, but generally from areas close to roads/human populations.


This is an important point and needs to be stressed. 



sports_doc said:


> And, as the population expands its hunger for cattle, wood, land etc, habitat will cont to be permanently altered faster then the loss from WC collection. U can believe that as truth!


However a lot of those are not incompatiable with maintaining good habitat or frog populations. The problem is that instead of using sustainable practices, they are using clear cut tactics and land conversions. This is the problem. 



sports_doc said:


> Cant we also make a _small_ argument that if we _are good_ breeders, we can supply WC demand by breeding these holy grail frogs ourselves?


This requires supplying enough animals that the cost to collect becomes too low for the hunter... I would say that we can replace some of the demand but this requires that people sell outside the immediate hobby. If people do not sell excess animals to resellers, then demand for wild caught animals outside of the community remains the same. Selling surplus to resellers outside of the hobby can also provide a outlet to help reduce the boom and bust cycles we have been seeing for years as it prevents a glut of some frogs reducing prices until people stop working with them. 



sports_doc said:


> If the hobby could set up operations like UE in Peru, where [yes, btw they start with WC collected animals- shock] set up breeding programs and supply you will all your needs as CB animals. Whoohoo. Only problem is, this is the only program of its kind.


The problem is that many countries are suspicious of these programs and they can take years to become established due to the problems with laundering, biopiracy and the risk of fiscal loss from chemical samples. 



sports_doc said:


> Who here is going to pay for a smuggled benedicta, veradero imi, bassleri now?? when you can just order CB clean animals from UE...right?
> ah ha, so it works to collect WC animals, breed them and supply the hobby....


The cynic in me says wait a few years until people start talking about how they are inbred or poor quality now.. or there is a big boom and bust cycle..... if they keep coming into the country from UE's programs then it isn't likely but if that gets disrupted long enough.... 




sports_doc said:


> Now this STF guy is raising money while we sit here and type and argue [amongst ourselves too] but DO nothing to help ourselves. We are a team...in this together....


Any suggestions? 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed,

With all due respect I can accept your explanation for the Golden frogs, but the ISIS tracking system is a joke. According to ISIS there is only a single pair of San Francisco Garters at the San Fran Zoo and none elsewhere in the area that is fradulent since there are several hundred in captivity between the San Fran Zoo and the Steinhart Aquarium and numerous breedings every year.

Of course according to ISIS there are only 33 Phelsuma Klemmeri in zoos world wide with no breeding in the last 12 months. Care to bet on the accuracy of that? 

ISIS :: Find Animals

And yes there is quite a bit of emotion on my end. I have seen multiple species disappear from this hobby. Just because there are no Guentheri in private hands now doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. I have personally owned Brookesia Permata and Furcifer Minor in the past. There are none currently in the hobby. Does that mean I imagined owning them?


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> With all due respect I can accept your explanation for the Golden frogs, but the ISIS tracking system is a joke. According to ISIS there is only a single pair of San Francisco Garters at the San Fran Zoo and none elsewhere in the area that is fradulent since there are several hundred in captivity between the San Fran Zoo and the Steinhart Aquarium and numerous breedings every year.


They aren't even listed as a species in thier collection on the Steinhardt site... they have discussions about them but they are not on display.. Can you explain the disparity in what you claim is in thier collection and what is listed both on thier site (which agrees with ISIS) and your claim? 



mantisdragon91 said:


> Of course according to ISIS there are only 33 Phelsuma Klemmeri in zoos world wide with no breeding in the last 12 months. Care to bet on the accuracy of that?


So which registered Zoo are you claiming has been breeding them in large numbers? 



mantisdragon91 said:


> And yes there is quite a bit of emotion on my end. I have seen multiple species disappear from this hobby. Just because there are no Guentheri in private hands now doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. I have personally owned Brookesia Permata and Furcifer Minor in the past. There are none currently in the hobby. Does that mean I imagined owning them?


Again this is an apples and oranges argument. See my comments about collection off of round island.. and then we have ample documentation that there were massive imports from Madagascar (both in the literature and in advertisements in some of that literature) which even if those species were not listed at least plausible.. those are why those two don't match up. 

I am aware of many species disappearing from the hobby at large and I have beaten that drum pretty consistently for years now.. however that does not mean I run around accusing zoos etc as the fate of those animals were entirely in the hands of the hobby... I am also aware of the probable long-term fate of the animals in the hobby based on the current status quo..... 

Ed


----------



## JJuchems

mantisdragon91 said:


> And yes there is quite a bit of emotion on my end. I have seen multiple species disappear from this hobby. Just because there are no Guentheri in private hands now doesn't mean there weren't any in the past. I have personally owned Brookesia Permata and Furcifer Minor in the past. There are none currently in the hobby. Does that mean I imagined owning them?


The Brookesia peramata references is untrue. Their are hobbyist with original, legal imports that choose to stay private about there ownership. There are hobbyist/collectors who choose not to boast their collections and only let items out of their collections to similar folks. Just because a species is no longer main stream does not mean they are no longer in the hobby or are smuggled. There legal statues is what had kept them from the hobby and widespread distribution at this point.


----------



## james67

isnt this a thread about "save the frogs"?

james


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> They aren't even listed as a species in thier collection on the Steinhardt site... they have discussions about them but they are not on display.. Can you explain the disparity in what you claim is in thier collection and what is listed both on thier site (which agrees with ISIS) and your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> So which registered Zoo are you claiming has been breeding them in large numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is an apples and oranges argument. See my comments about collection off of round island.. and then we have ample documentation that there were massive imports from Madagascar (both in the literature and in advertisements in some of that literature) which even if those species were not listed at least plausible.. those are why those two don't match up.
> 
> I am aware of many species disappearing from the hobby at large and I have beaten that drum pretty consistently for years now.. however that does not mean I run around accusing zoos etc as the fate of those animals were entirely in the hands of the hobby... I am also aware of the probable long-term fate of the animals in the hobby based on the current status quo.....
> 
> Ed


I have just had a chance to look through my personal reference library. If you have the Advanced Vivarium Systems book on Phelsuma by Sean McKeown that was published in 1993 look on page 76. Under the species account of Guentheri there is a mention of the species only being bred at the Jersey Zoo as well as by a couple of private hobbyists in Germany and Holland. Can't believe that Sean would put publish that information unless he could provide documentation. 

Regarding the San Fran Garter I know first hand that they were bred in large numbers at both the San Fran Zoo and the Steinhart Aquarium and can provide documentation from people there if given enough time. Coincidentaly they were also bred in fairly large number at the Jersey Zoo which is where most of the specimens currently in Europe and Canada originated from.

And regarding the Klemmeri there are a number of zoos listing them in pairs. Anyone who has ever had Klemmeri will tell you that if you have a pair you will eventually have offspring. The ease of breeding this species is the reason an animal that has not been imported into this country as a WC for the past decade can still be aquired for as little as $50 each at times.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> I have just had a chance to look through my personal reference library. If you have the Advanced Vivarium Systems book on Phelsuma by Sean McKeown that was published in 1993 look on page 76. Under the species account of Guentheri there is a mention of the species only being bred at the Jersey Zoo as well as by a couple of private hobbyists in Germany and Holland. Can't believe that Sean would put publish that information unless he could provide documentation.


This in no way indicates that those geckos were wild caught.. or did not originate with Jersey. It is possible that Jersey, created assurance colonies.. 



mantisdragon91 said:


> Regarding the San Fran Garter I know first hand that they were bred in large numbers at both the San Fran Zoo and the Steinhart Aquarium and can provide documentation from people there if given enough time.


So your position is that within the last 12 months the Steinhart Aquarium reproduced San Francisco Garter snakes in thier facility? 



mantisdragon91 said:


> Coincidentaly they were also bred in fairly large number at the Jersey Zoo which is where most of the specimens currently in Europe and Canada originated from.


Actually the ones in the European Zoos originated from the captive breedings in the US Zoos, and then they bred and distributed the snakes. I don't know how outdated your information was/is but in 2007-2008, Jersey reported having a single male which died... (see http://www.eaza.net/activities/cp/yearbook20072008/04_Reptile_TAG.pdf ) 





mantisdragon91 said:


> And regarding the Klemmeri there are a number of zoos listing them in pairs. Anyone who has ever had Klemmeri will tell you that if you have a pair you will eventually have offspring. The ease of breeding this species is the reason an animal that has not been imported into this country as a WC for the past decade can still be aquired for as little as $50 each at times.


Having pairs does not automatically mean 
1) they are housed together 
2) that the eggs are allowed to hatch...


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> He simply could have misremembered... think about this logically... you are saying based on a extrapolation of a personal communication, the reason that there aren't any P. guentheri in the hobby anymore Iif there ever were) is because they were all donated to the Channel Island trust.. those supposed animals in turn were collected from an island that is difficult to access, has restricted access by the local goverment, has been under fairly constant surveys and analysis since 1975.. and all of that for a largish, dull colored (duller in color than adult P. standingi), nocturnal gecko... that isn't even restricted in trade (it is CITES II not CITES I)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed


Hmm a large, dull colored, nocturnal gecko coming from a remote island with restricted access by the local government. Sure sounds like a Leachianus and I'm sure no one would go through the trouble of bringing those into the private sector


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> This in no way indicates that those geckos were wild caught.. or did not originate with Jersey. It is possible that Jersey, created assurance colonies..
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that within the last 12 months the Steinhart Aquarium reproduced San Francisco Garter snakes in thier facility?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the ones in the European Zoos originated from the captive breedings in the US Zoos, and then they bred and distributed the snakes. I don't know how outdated your information was/is but in 2007-2008, Jersey reported having a single male which died... (see http://www.eaza.net/activities/cp/yearbook20072008/04_Reptile_TAG.pdf )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having pairs does not automatically mean
> 1) they are housed together
> 2) that the eggs are allowed to hatch...


Let me adress all your points in the order they were given.

On the Guentheri its certainly possible that the animals in question came from the Jersey Zoo but why wouldn't they provide offspring to other zoos first as opposed to private hobbyists, unless the private hobbyists were the ones who provided the "founder stock" for the original colony?

Regarding the Garters I am indeed claiming that they were bred at both institutions in the past year, and attached is a link showing that the majority of the animals in Europe and Canada did come from the Jersey Zoo.

The San Francisco Garter Snake in Canada - gartersnake.info

As for the Klemmeri to go back to your logic argument why would zoos keep a species with a very restricted natural range and in danger of extinction due to deforestation in a position where they couldn't be bred intentionally? What would be the rationale behind that?


----------



## Smashtoad

I am following this argument with great relish. Let's take a snapshot of where we are, shall we? If I have mischaracterized anyone's opinion, I apologize, but I had to gather my thoughts by skimming...if I took enough time to read every post in this wayward thread on this glorious Saturday morning...I would punch myself in the face. I have animals to feed and all that jazz. I may eat one of them, just so you know...why? Because they're mine.

Now...the academic, with over 8K posts to this forum...has taken the position that the fruits of his own hobby (which he enjoys to the tune of 8K posts) are less than valuable, most likely because his brethren, i.e. the rest of us, are not smart enough to handle that herculean responsibility. Because as we all know...if the golden toad and San Fran Garter go the way of the dodo...the earth will immediately explode...poof. By the way...I'll bet dodos were freakin delicious, as their breasts were ginormous. Don't miss Deep Fried Dodo Breasts in their "Fear No Natives Tour 2011".

He also argues that organized science, i.e. government funded with money taken from all of us, is the only hope of responsibly maintaining the existence of a viable population in captivity. The question is...for what? Reintroduction? As much as some of us would like to...we cannot control what other countries do with their land. 

Anyone here watch "Storm Chasers"? If you do...do you like Josh Werman? Of course you don't...why? Because he is a tax-funded Dbag of the highest order, and once he has your money he is the boss and will not be questioned. In all my life I have never seen a better example of scientific ineptitude than Josh Werman. All the money in the world to buy science toys, and yet Reed Timmer runs vortices around him...with passion, with art, with a love for what he is doing. It's all the same...it's all related to what we're talking about. 

The Big Picture: See it! (I should trademark that)

If this argument ever comes down to the logical impass:

Two groups of people standing far apart on a plot of land, one group fighting to save the land for the Kardashian Wildlife Project for the Preservation of the Cutest Frog Ever, and the other group trying to build homes for their families...guess who's gonna do some killin, and who is gonna wet themselves?

Government does nothing efficiently enough for it to survive on it's own...only we can do that. Freedom.


----------



## Philsuma

^^^^^^^^

The only thing I can possibly understand from that post is that Dodo meat, would probably be luscious and fall right off the bone. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that post just joined forces with my alcohol addled state and killed an extra 49 brain cells.


----------



## Azurel

Philsuma said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> The only thing I can possibly understand from that post is that Dodo meat, would probably be luscious and fall right off the bone. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that post just joined forces with my alcohol addled state and killed an extra 49 brain cells.


LOL......Atleast it wasn't a solid 50....lol


----------



## Enlightened Rogue

Don`t ever worry about Phil.
He`s got plenty of brain spares to cell.

John


----------



## sports_doc

Ed said:


> This is an important point and needs to be stressed.
> 
> 
> 
> However a lot of those are not incompatiable with maintaining good habitat or frog populations. The problem is that instead of using sustainable practices, they are using clear cut tactics and land conversions. This is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> This requires supplying enough animals that the cost to collect becomes too low for the hunter... I would say that we can replace some of the demand but this requires that people sell outside the immediate hobby. If people do not sell excess animals to resellers, then demand for wild caught animals outside of the community remains the same. Selling surplus to resellers outside of the hobby can also provide a outlet to help reduce the boom and bust cycles we have been seeing for years as it prevents a glut of some frogs reducing prices until people stop working with them.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that many countries are suspicious of these programs and they can take years to become established due to the problems with laundering, biopiracy and the risk of fiscal loss from chemical samples.
> 
> 
> 
> The cynic in me says wait a few years until people start talking about how they are inbred or poor quality now.. or there is a big boom and bust cycle..... if they keep coming into the country from UE's programs then it isn't likely but if that gets disrupted long enough....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Ed


LOL. I've finally been 'deconstructed' by Ed. 

We exhaust ourselves typing in forums, and I never see any action. The community really isnt 'behind' any causes ourselves are we?

Cant just complain about someone elses website or 'program' and then do nothing....?

Maybe TWI can assist and DB community can support them financially. We have #'s behind us, and passion certainly. 

But I'm not a starter here. Honestly, I just dont have the time.

And you are right, I dont think we will have the ability to produce the #'s needed to sell back to re-salers. But we dont have to buy from them either!! Let them go out of business I say.

And you are right about the cycle that occurs when the hobby starts to 'feel' the need to bring in new genetics to beef up our 'inbred' lines. I dont have a solution there, other then perhaps _proof _that it isnt necessary.

I have very little eyes-on experience with third world countries and the pressures they have there to survive. The little I saw of Peru it was obvious though that burning/clearing the forest for livestock and cash crops was dramatically altering the landscape.

When I research the ongoing process of expansion of the human population, its usage of land for cattle, and its need for timber...I dont get a warm fuzzy feeling that 'we' are 'sustainable'. 

S


----------



## skylsdale

Shawn, you have some good points here. Just a few of my own to compliment them...



sports_doc said:


> We exhaust ourselves typing in forums, and I never see any action. The community really isnt 'behind' any causes ourselves are we?
> 
> Cant just complain about someone elses website or 'program' and then do nothing....?


I think many of us in the hobby deceive ourselves by describing ourselves as being more "conservation oriented" than other hobbies...or at least the larger herp hobby. When saying this, I think people assume that means we are actually performing some act of conservation, but in reality, what I've discovered it means is that we are just more _aware_ of the conservation issues related to the animals we keep. We aren't necessarily doing anything about them, but we do know more about them. The error we commit (whether we are aware of it or not) is that we equate awareness about or knowledge of...with action. But obviously, simply knowing about or being aware of something isn't actually _doing _anything about it. Discussing/arguing about it on forums, like you said, isn't accomplishing conservation. But I think, even if its subconsciously, we somehow think that we do, we are somehow participating in conservation.

We love to critique and criticize movements, organizations, etc. and do so vehemently on forums like this. We spend copious amounts of time and energy breaking things (and people) down. But being 'against' things doesn't necessarily equate to being 'for' anything. What I see is a hobby of consumerism, even in its philanthropic interests: "If I could just find the organization that would do/offer every single thing I want them to...then I would support them." We want the option to participate, and when something doesn't line up 153% with what we want, then we opt out and blame our level of inactivity on _them_.




> Maybe TWI can assist and DB community can support them financially. We have #'s behind us, and passion certainly.


It's possible...but in my experience as director of TWI for 2 years now (and even longer before that as just the Leaf Litter editor), I have come to discover that passion burns out rather quickly. We receive numerous inquiries of interest from people who want to get involved, help out, start a program or initiative. The unfortunate pattern is that we engage them and create a dialogue and pour energy into getting a framework going...and then that person disappears, rarely ever heard from again. Passion is obviously not our problem, nor is numbers - what we need is commitment to the cause and the willingness to work with others, to slog on and continue pushing the program/cause/initiative forward regardless. Initial excitement amongst a large group of people often seems to dissolve into a sparse few willing to stick it out for the long haul. 

As director I can only do so much...and as an org we can only offer so many things for people to participate in. The success of programs that hinge on the participation of volunteers and/or stewards is only as successful as the participation of those volunteers/stewards. We can create TMPs, but we need people willing to step up and say: "Okay, I'm ready to organize a handful of people and start actively managing a population." And then actually DO it. We can only take it so far, and at some point the hobby needs to take the baton and move it forward.

As far as supporting financially, our next newsletter (coming out VERY soon) is going to unroll our amphibian conservation small grants program...which is possible only through the donations and contributions of TWI members and supporters. I'm personally really excited to be able to finally offer this and support projects, people, and research involved in amphibian conservation...but it has taken this long to acquire the funds needed to award the first few grants. 



> But I'm not a starter here. Honestly, I just dont have the time.


This is a struggle for all of us. Everyone one of us with TWI works day jobs (some of us, including myself, more than one). Everything we do, from answering e-mails to editing articles to helping install frog ponds at schools...it's in our spare time. Until now, this has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of people to keep things moving. The great thing is that the 'starters' have already started it. We don't need to reinvent the wheel: what we need are folks willing to keep it spinning. Maybe you can't construct an entire initiative...but can you start an e-mail list with other folks and manage an imitator population, perhaps sending in accession info twice a year? This is the sort of thing that would really help right now, but it's things as simple as that which we just can't find people to help with.



> And you are right about the cycle that occurs when the hobby starts to 'feel' the need to bring in new genetics to beef up our 'inbred' lines. I dont have a solution there, other then perhaps _proof _that it isnt necessary.


The irony here is that if we could begin to track and properly manage our captive animals, we would be much more informed regarding what we're actually working with genetically...and whether beefing up the lines/population is necessary or not.

Just some thoughts/hopes based on my experience...


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Ron,

It seems to me that, unless a conservation effort is supported by governmental regulatory jurisdiction (such as the ESA in the U.S.), private not-for-profit efforts almost always fall to the organization founders. Finding a large pool of volunteer help for organizational missions is (at least in my experience with endangered native plants) difficult to achieve.

I think the issue becomes deeply confounded when the goals of the hobby are not necessarily consonant with the goals of conservation. Several recent threads here would demonstrate that there is, essentially, universal support for the smuggling of frogs within the hobby. Those that try to identify smuggling as an issue within the hobby are often mocked and vilified.

Compare the issues related to the "theft" of frogs, and you'll find universal support against thievery in the hobby. So what we can say is, that if someone is bringing you the frogs that you want (no matter that they were taken from the wild illegally), this is perfectly acceptable. If someone is taking away from you some of the very same smuggled frogs, it is considered criminal.

Given the mindset of the hobby, I wonder if it is barking up the wrong tree to look for persons that are sympathetic to conservation of the frogs in the wild. Perhaps it would be better to look to the wider conservation movement for support for dart frog conservation if the hobby community has philosophical differences with the goals of the conservation community.

Just some thoughts, Richard.



skylsdale said:


> Shawn, you have some good points here. Just a few of my own to compliment them...
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of us in the hobby deceive ourselves by describing ourselves as being more "conservation oriented" than other hobbies...or at least the larger herp hobby. When saying this, I think people assume that means we are actually performing some act of conservation, but in reality, what I've discovered it means is that we are just more _aware_ of the conservation issues related to the animals we keep. We aren't necessarily doing anything about them, but we do know more about them. The error we commit (whether we are aware of it or not) is that we equate awareness about or knowledge of...with action. But obviously, simply knowing about or being aware of something isn't actually _doing _anything about it. Discussing/arguing about it on forums, like you said, isn't accomplishing conservation. But I think, even if its subconsciously, we somehow think that we do, we are somehow participating in conservation.
> 
> We love to critique and criticize movements, organizations, etc. and do so vehemently on forums like this. We spend copious amounts of time and energy breaking things (and people) down. But being 'against' things doesn't necessarily equate to being 'for' anything. What I see is a hobby of consumerism, even in its philanthropic interests: "If I could just find the organization that would do/offer every single thing I want them to...then I would support them." We want the option to participate, and when something doesn't line up 153% with what we want, then we opt out and blame our level of inactivity on _them_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible...but in my experience as director of TWI for 2 years now (and even longer before that as just the Leaf Litter editor), I have come to discover that passion burns out rather quickly. We receive numerous inquiries of interest from people who want to get involved, help out, start a program or initiative. The unfortunate pattern is that we engage them and create a dialogue and pour energy into getting a framework going...and then that person disappears, rarely ever heard from again. Passion is obviously not our problem, nor is numbers - what we need is commitment to the cause and the willingness to work with others, to slog on and continue pushing the program/cause/initiative forward regardless. Initial excitement amongst a large group of people often seems to dissolve into a sparse few willing to stick it out for the long haul.
> 
> As director I can only do so much...and as an org we can only offer so many things for people to participate in. The success of programs that hinge on the participation of volunteers and/or stewards is only as successful as the participation of those volunteers/stewards. We can create TMPs, but we need people willing to step up and say: "Okay, I'm ready to organize a handful of people and start actively managing a population." And then actually DO it. We can only take it so far, and at some point the hobby needs to take the baton and move it forward.
> 
> As far as supporting financially, our next newsletter (coming out VERY soon) is going to unroll our amphibian conservation small grants program...which is possible only through the donations and contributions of TWI members and supporters. I'm personally really excited to be able to finally offer this and support projects, people, and research involved in amphibian conservation...but it has taken this long to acquire the funds needed to award the first few grants.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a struggle for all of us. Everyone one of us with TWI works day jobs (some of us, including myself, more than one). Everything we do, from answering e-mails to editing articles to helping install frog ponds at schools...it's in our spare time. Until now, this has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of people to keep things moving. The great thing is that the 'starters' have already started it. We don't need to reinvent the wheel: what we need are folks willing to keep it spinning. Maybe you can't construct an entire initiative...but can you start an e-mail list with other folks and manage an imitator population, perhaps sending in accession info twice a year? This is the sort of thing that would really help right now, but it's things as simple as that which we just can't find people to help with.
> 
> 
> 
> The irony here is that if we could begin to track and properly manage our captive animals, we would be much more informed regarding what we're actually working with genetically...and whether beefing up the lines/population is necessary or not.
> 
> Just some thoughts/hopes based on my experience...


----------



## Azurel

I want to see the threads or post where people say or lead to illegal smuggling being "universally" acceptable?


----------



## skylsdale

Woodsman said:


> Given the mindset of the hobby, I wonder if it is barking up the wrong tree to look for persons that are sympathetic to conservation of the frogs in the wild. Perhaps it would be better to look to the wider conservation movement for support for dart frog conservation if the hobby community has philosophical differences with the goals of the conservation community.


Hi Richard, these are all good thoughts and are frequently the topics of various conversations we have regarding our mission, how to move forward, etc.

One thing that we frequently realize is that people don't actually understand the purpose/mission of TWI: to serve as a vehicle through which ordinary folks can participate in grassroots amphibian conservation. To this end, we are not lobbyists (as some folks think we should be) nor are we a hobby advocacy/protection group (as some folks think we should be). We straddle the middle ground, attempting to funnel the skills and experiential knowledge of hobbyists and the private sector to aid in the conservation of wild amphibian populations. This is the mission of the org and always has been since day one. Unfortunately, many people have not taken the time to familiarize themselves with those things and criticize us for not doing what they perceive to be our mission. So their criticisms of the org are not actually of the org itself, but rather their misunderstood notions of what they think the org is about.

In relation to this, although we started out as specifically focused on Dendrobatids (hence the name "Tree Walkers"), we focus on ALL amphibian species, from frogs and caudates. One of our most popular programs is Operation Frog Pond, where we help people (through resources or small grants) build amphibian-friendly breeding ponds. Those who get involved in this program have often never even aware of the fact that people keep "poison dart frogs" in their homes. So although we are best plugged into and most well known within the Dendrobatid hobby (especially being a hobbyist myself), it is by no means the only area we focus on and look to for partnerships and various types of support.


----------



## Vermfly

Woodsman said:


> I think the issue becomes deeply confounded when the goals of the hobby are not necessarily consonant with the goals of conservation. Several recent threads here would demonstrate that there is, essentially, universal support for the smuggling of frogs within the hobby. Those that try to identify smuggling as an issue within the hobby are often mocked and vilified.


I have a few thoughts too Dick. I have no idea where you get the idea that smuggling frogs is universally supported. The first thing I said in my post was that I'm whole-heartedly against the illegal smuggling of frogs. I posted this originally to bring attention to that fact that Dr. Kriger and his organization view our hobby on the same level as holding slaves based on his own statements in the year end fundraising email I received. This makes him no better than PETA and other animal rights fundamentalists.


----------



## Roadrunner

First off, Mark Pepper is doing a lot for conservation, knowledge(genetics) and yes, CONSERVATION of these frogs. Not buying wc smuggled frogs and trying to breed the animals and making people aware of what's wc and what was produced from NO ANIMALS FROM THE WILD LEAVING THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, you are supporting a sustainable practice and you are putting some of your money towards keeping those tracts of land from being logged. If you buy wc SMUGGLED frogs then your part of the problem. The difference about this group of amphibians is that you have the chance to support something that does conserve lands and keeps populations from being over collected, to me that's conservation!!

And you have a chance to do something about conservation where every single one of you lives. You can grow tomatoes on your patio, porch, whatever. You can eat less meat that's corn fed and support local farmers. There are tons of things you can do to help conservation every day. I'm heating my home from wood knocked down from the october storm 2 years ago. We're putting out a solar shower next spring to save on heating water for baths in the summer. I saved frogs by buying the 86 acres of flood plain I did so that it won't be turned into farmland, so people who have bought frogs from me HAVE helped w/ conservation of frogs and resources. The talks I've given to other people when I have shown my frogs to cub scout troops, the lions club and herp organizations have been supported by people who have bought my frogs. I volunteer at the local wildlife refuge because I'm able to make a living off of breeding frogs.

And it's contagious!! Every one of the people who have seen my home and land have been inspired in some way by what I do. But you have to live it. Think of the 100th monkey!!



skylsdale said:


> Shawn, you have some good points here. Just a few of my own to compliment them...
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of us in the hobby deceive ourselves by describing ourselves as being more "conservation oriented" than other hobbies...or at least the larger herp hobby. When saying this, I think people assume that means we are actually performing some act of conservation, but in reality, what I've discovered it means is that we are just more _aware_ of the conservation issues related to the animals we keep. We aren't necessarily doing anything about them, but we do know more about them. The error we commit (whether we are aware of it or not) is that we equate awareness about or knowledge of...with action. But obviously, simply knowing about or being aware of something isn't actually _doing _anything about it. Discussing/arguing about it on forums, like you said, isn't accomplishing conservation. But I think, even if its subconsciously, we somehow think that we do, we are somehow participating in conservation.
> 
> We love to critique and criticize movements, organizations, etc. and do so vehemently on forums like this. We spend copious amounts of time and energy breaking things (and people) down. But being 'against' things doesn't necessarily equate to being 'for' anything. What I see is a hobby of consumerism, even in its philanthropic interests: "If I could just find the organization that would do/offer every single thing I want them to...then I would support them." We want the option to participate, and when something doesn't line up 153% with what we want, then we opt out and blame our level of inactivity on _them_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible...but in my experience as director of TWI for 2 years now (and even longer before that as just the Leaf Litter editor), I have come to discover that passion burns out rather quickly. We receive numerous inquiries of interest from people who want to get involved, help out, start a program or initiative. The unfortunate pattern is that we engage them and create a dialogue and pour energy into getting a framework going...and then that person disappears, rarely ever heard from again. Passion is obviously not our problem, nor is numbers - what we need is commitment to the cause and the willingness to work with others, to slog on and continue pushing the program/cause/initiative forward regardless. Initial excitement amongst a large group of people often seems to dissolve into a sparse few willing to stick it out for the long haul.
> 
> As director I can only do so much...and as an org we can only offer so many things for people to participate in. The success of programs that hinge on the participation of volunteers and/or stewards is only as successful as the participation of those volunteers/stewards. We can create TMPs, but we need people willing to step up and say: "Okay, I'm ready to organize a handful of people and start actively managing a population." And then actually DO it. We can only take it so far, and at some point the hobby needs to take the baton and move it forward.
> 
> As far as supporting financially, our next newsletter (coming out VERY soon) is going to unroll our amphibian conservation small grants program...which is possible only through the donations and contributions of TWI members and supporters. I'm personally really excited to be able to finally offer this and support projects, people, and research involved in amphibian conservation...but it has taken this long to acquire the funds needed to award the first few grants.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a struggle for all of us. Everyone one of us with TWI works day jobs (some of us, including myself, more than one). Everything we do, from answering e-mails to editing articles to helping install frog ponds at schools...it's in our spare time. Until now, this has fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of people to keep things moving. The great thing is that the 'starters' have already started it. We don't need to reinvent the wheel: what we need are folks willing to keep it spinning. Maybe you can't construct an entire initiative...but can you start an e-mail list with other folks and manage an imitator population, perhaps sending in accession info twice a year? This is the sort of thing that would really help right now, but it's things as simple as that which we just can't find people to help with.
> 
> 
> 
> The irony here is that if we could begin to track and properly manage our captive animals, we would be much more informed regarding what we're actually working with genetically...and whether beefing up the lines/population is necessary or not.
> 
> Just some thoughts/hopes based on my experience...


----------



## Roadrunner

Second, if they are no longer in the wild and they are in captivity and there is no longer a habitat for them to go back to in the wild then they are CONSERVED for the time being. Now your conserving all the allelles of a wild population well, what can a handful of people (dedicated people) do w/ thousands of different morphs of dart frogs? Esp when "competing" to make a living since most people w/ sizable collections couldn't really do anything else to make a living. When will it be conservation? When 3 people register 3 wc pairs even though that won't sustain them? 50 people w/ a wc pair each? Would that be conservation? Would me registering 1 wc pair be conservation if no one that buys from me ever registers theirs? What actually is conservation if we can't do anything "down there". What happens if my conservation $$'s only last for keeping the forest for 30 years and my unregistered frogs are around for 200?


----------



## Woodsman

Would we support Mark if he didn't have anything to sell us? Do we support the work of other amphibian conservation efforts that do even more for in situ conservation (like the CRAC in Costa Rica)? We like Mark's "style" of conservation only because it gives us what we want, frogs. What Mark does with the money (land conservation) is not the reason hobbyists give him the money. That is just a side result that makes people able to say that they support conservation. Mark, no frogs, no money, no conservation. Not particularly altruistic.

Richard.



frogfarm said:


> First off, Mark Pepper is doing a lot for conservation, knowledge(genetics) and yes, CONSERVATION of these frogs. Not buying wc smuggled frogs and trying to breed the animals and making people aware of what's wc and what was produced from NO ANIMALS FROM THE WILD LEAVING THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, you are supporting a sustainable practice and you are putting some of your money towards keeping those tracts of land from being logged. If you buy wc SMUGGLED frogs then your part of the problem. The difference about this group of amphibians is that you have the chance to support something that does conserve lands and keeps populations from being over collected, to me that's conservation!!
> 
> And you have a chance to do something about conservation where every single one of you lives. You can grow tomatoes on your patio, porch, whatever. You can eat less meat that's corn fed and support local farmers. There are tons of things you can do to help conservation every day. I'm heating my home from wood knocked down from the october storm 2 years ago. We're putting out a solar shower next spring to save on heating water for baths in the summer. I saved frogs by buying the 86 acres of flood plain I did so that it won't be turned into farmland, so people who have bought frogs from me HAVE helped w/ conservation of frogs and resources. The talks I've given to other people when I have shown my frogs to cub scout troops, the lions club and herp organizations have been supported by people who have bought my frogs. I volunteer at the local wildlife refuge because I'm able to make a living off of breeding frogs.
> 
> And it's contagious!! Every one of the people who have seen my home and land have been inspired in some way by what I do. But you have to live it. Think of the 100th monkey!!


----------



## james67

Woodsman said:


> Do we support the work of other amphibian conservation efforts that do even more for in situ conservation (like the CRAC in Costa Rica)?


the glass frogs that are being sold by understory (mark) originally came from brian at CRARC, so how can you make a distinction that one is more valid than the other? particularly when buying frogs from mark directly affects the CRARC program and its ability to operate?

they work hand in hand on conservation efforts, as shown here:Understory Enterprises Inc. - Costa Rica

sorry but that was a BAD example richard.
james


----------



## Woodsman

Hi James,

The CRAC has been around for years, but wasn't on our "radar" until they had a commodity that we could consume. While I think Mark is doing great work, I think we are the ones who have to understand that there is a WORLD of conservation efforts that need our help and, unfortunately, they don't all have frogs to sell us.

There's also the issue of, now that Mark had brought in legal forms of frogs (such as the Vanzolinis), it sort of legitimizes all the many (many) lines of frogs that derive from smuggled sources. My understanding is that he only sold his Vanzolinis to one person, so most of the frogs in the hobby are still of smuggled origins. His work, unfortunately, does cloud the issues over smuggled frogs somewhat.

Richard.



james67 said:


> the glass frogs that are being sold by understory (mark) originally came from brian at CRARC, so how can you make a distinction that one is more valid than the other? particularly when buying frogs from mark directly affects the CRARC program and its ability to operate?
> 
> they work hand in hand on conservation efforts, as shown here:Understory Enterprises Inc. - Costa Rica
> 
> sorry but that was a BAD example richard.
> james


----------



## james67

a number of people have been looking HARD for any sort of reason to use mark pepper as a target. 

please give me a GOOD reason. it seems like all the negative banter about him is solely personal, and simply masked by whatever seemingly conservation or legally based bs people can come up with.

im not singling you out here richard, but what is wrong with selling frogs? i know i dont care if the reason CRARC can expand its conservation efforts based on the sale of frogs? isnt that a win win? 

james


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> Hi James,
> 
> The CRAC has been around for years, but wasn't on our "radar" until they had a commodity that we could consume. While I think Mark is doing great work, I think we are the ones who have to understand that there is a WORLD of conservation efforts that need our help and, unfortunately, they don't all have frogs to sell us.
> 
> There's also the issue of, now that Mark had brought in legal forms of frogs (such as the Vanzolinis), it sort of legitimizes all the many (many) lines of frogs that derive from smuggled sources. My understanding is that he only sold his Vanzolinis to one person, so most of the frogs in the hobby are still of smuggled origins. His work, unfortunately, does cloud the issues over smuggled frogs somewhat.
> 
> Richard.


This is really a complex issue especially when you take into account that many of these conservation organizations are more concerned with conserving their long term survival as opposed to the animals they are supposed to be protecting. Just like the organization that started this thread too many of them are more worried about creating and perputuating stereotypes that will get them as many donations as possible as opposed to championing the most needy causes and species. With that said why should hobbyists spend their hard earned funds with these organizationns especially as many of them view us as inept amateurs at best and sworn enemies at worst?


----------



## Woodsman

Hi James,

I'm not complaining about Mark, I am complaining about US. There's a difference.

Would you only support Panda conservation if they would deliever a Panda to your door?

That's the point I was trying to make.

Richard.



james67 said:


> a number of people have been looking HARD for any sort of reason to use mark pepper as a target.
> 
> please give me a GOOD reason. it seems like all the negative banter about him is solely personal, and simply masked by whatever seemingly conservation or legally based bs people can come up with.
> 
> im not singling you out here richard, but what is wrong with selling frogs? i know i dont care if the reason CRARC can expand its conservation efforts based on the sale of frogs? isnt that a win win?
> 
> james


----------



## james67

there are plenty of organizations supported by hobbyists that dont offer animals for sale. 

the first that comes to mind is amphibian ark (which there was a very long thread about recently). while people are expressing distaste for their actions recently with USF&W there was obviously a decent # of hobbyist which had until recently been supporting their work through donations (that is another topic for that thread though)

james


----------



## Woodsman

Hi Roman,

It is a complex issue, for sure. I guess the point I have been trying to make is that the "hobby" certainly does support the smuggling of frogs from the wild and that this goes completely counter to the "ideal" that we have of our community as "pro" conservation. If we can't deal better with the CURRENT issue of smuggled frogs, we have little justification for referring to ourselves as conservationists. It's disingenuous at best.

Take care, Richard.



mantisdragon91 said:


> This is really a complex issue especially when you take into account that many of these conservation organizations are more concerned with conserving their long term survival as opposed to the animals they are supposed to be protecting. Just like the organization that started this thread too many of them are more worried about creating and perputuating stereotypes that will get them as many donations as possible as opposed to championing the most needy causes and species. With that said why should hobbyists spend their hard earned funds with these organizationns especially as many of them view us as inept amateurs at best and sworn enemies at worst?


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> Hi Roman,
> 
> It is a complex issue, for sure. I guess the point I have been trying to make is that the "hobby" certainly does support the smuggling of frogs from the wild and that this goes completely counter to the "ideal" that we have of our community as "pro" conservation. If we can't deal better with the CURRENT issue of smuggled frogs, we have little justification for referring to ourselves as conservationists. It's disingenuous at best.
> 
> Take care, Richard.


Can you provide examples of this support of smuggling by the dart commuity? 

On a personal note I can tell you for myself that I would smuggle animals in a heartbeat if I knew their environment was being destroyed and they had no where else to go. On the other hand I would never consider taking protected animals out of pristine unthreatened habitat.

I have friends who work for Cites and they will admit first hand that some of the quotas and restriction have no basis in science and are merely motivated by money and politics. To give you an example of the conflict between commerce and science look at Indonesia's quota for Water Monitors. Only about 5,000 can be taken alive for export on the other hand over 400,000 skins are allowed to be exported. Explain the science on that?

http://www.cites.org/common/quotas/2010/ExportQuotas2010.pdf


----------



## Woodsman

I have good examples of smuggling.

You and I are going to strongly disagree that smuggling is a good thing. So let's that be that. I prefer to live a legal life than an illegal one.

Richard.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Can you provide examples of this support of smuggling by the dart commuity?
> 
> On a personal note I can tell you for myself that I would smuggle animals in a heartbeat if I knew their environment was being destroyed and they had no where else to go. On the other hand I would never consider taking protected animals out of pristine unthreatened habitat.
> 
> I have friends who work for Cites and they will admit first hand that some of the quotas and restriction have no basis in science and are merely motivated by money and politics. To give you an example of the conflict between commerce and science look at Indonesia's quota for Water Monitors. Only about 5,000 can be taken alive for export on the other hand over 400,000 skins are allowed to be exported. Explain the science on that?
> 
> http://www.cites.org/common/quotas/2010/ExportQuotas2010.pdf


----------



## fleshfrombone

Woodsman said:


> I have good examples of smuggling.


I'm all ears.



Woodsman said:


> You and I are going to strongly disagree that smuggling is a good thing. So let's that be that. I prefer to live a legal life than an illegal one.
> 
> Richard.


Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. Not saying I support smuggling.


----------



## JJuchems

Woodsman said:


> Hi James,
> 
> I'm not complaining about Mark, I am complaining about US. There's a difference.
> 
> Would you only support Panda conservation if they would deliever a Panda to your door?
> 
> That's the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Richard.


There are plenty of hobbyist who have supported conservation without getting the species. It is a bit skeptical to say we only support organizations or organizers that send species. Look at the all the TWI/ASN folks on the board, plus the board members who are members without the blue names. 

If the hobby only supports those that send animals I think I an due a radiated tortoise, Giant Panada, giant salamander, Gharial, ect.

On the Topic: This group is only here to kill and destroy the hobby. Their sentiment has been stated with "slaves." There PETA and Humane Society stance should not be taken with caution, but with action. WE need to monitor, organize, and be prepared to defend the hobby of amphibian keeping/herpetculture. Keep your friends close, but you enemies closer.


----------



## Vermfly

Thank you for attempting to get back on topic, Jason. The first thing I would like to see is people pledging not to support Save The Frogs! with their donations. I will never give them a cent of my money. I wish I had known Dr. Kriger's feelings about my hobby when I visited his booth at the Sacramento Reptile Show. I would have loved to bring up my concerns in person. I had bought some frogs that day so I couldn't afford to give a donation and now I'm very happy about that. I plan on talking to the organizers and discussing Dr. Kriger's extreme views.


----------



## Yobosayo

Vermfly said:


> Thank you for attempting to get back on topic, Jason. The first thing I would like to see is people pledging not to support Save The Frogs! with their donations. I will never give them a cent of my money. I wish I had known Dr. Kriger's feelings about my hobby when I visited his booth at the Sacramento Reptile Show. I would have loved to bring up my concerns in person. I had bought some frogs that day so I couldn't afford to give a donation and now I'm very happy about that. I plan on talking to the organizers and discussing Dr. Kriger's extreme views.


And remember that the good doctor ends up with close to 20% of your donations going into his pocket. He's even set up a 401k type savings plan for himself. It will be interesting to see if his personal 2010 take deviates much from 2009.

Anybody else think it's pretty shitty that he shows up at herp shows seeking to make money off of those that he wants destroyed? No different than our governments stance on tobacco use in my book - shun the hell out of it, regulate it, and keep both hands out to grab all of the money...


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Yobosayo said:


> And remember that the good doctor ends up with close to 20% of your donations going into his pocket. He's even set up a 401k type savings plan for himself. It will be interesting to see if his personal 2010 take deviates much from 2009.
> 
> Anybody else think it's pretty shitty that he shows up at herp shows seeking to make money off of those that he wants destroyed? No different than our governments stance on tobacco use in my book - shun the hell out of it, regulate it, and keep both hands out to grab all of the money...


So what is he actually taking home in annual pay and where are you getting the information on his financials?


----------



## edwardsatc

Brotherly Monkey said:


> So what is he actually taking home in annual pay and where are you getting the information on his financials?


Their 2009 IRS 990 is available on the web site:
http://www.savethefrogs.com/who-we-are/images/Form 990-EZ STF 2009 FINAL.pdf


----------



## Woodsman

It's not illegal for not-for-profits to pay employees.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> It's not illegal for not-for-profits to pay employees.


No but as demonstrated by the United Way scandal of a few years back it is illegal to pay them more than the average of all non profits of that size especially when there is no oversight involved. It all comes down to how much of each dollar makes it to the stated cause versus how much gets eaten up in admin costs. I have a sneaking suspicion this clown wouldn't fare well in that regard.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

edwardsatc said:


> Their 2009 IRS 990 is available on the web site:
> http://www.savethefrogs.com/who-we-are/images/Form 990-EZ STF 2009 FINAL.pdf


So the fat-cat made a little under 10 grand last year, including benefits?


Oh, that scamp!


----------



## Philsuma

Brotherly Monkey said:


> So the fat-cat made a little under 10 grand last year, including benefits?
> 
> 
> Oh, that scamp!


 
Oh but I'm sure he's hoping (hopping) for a *MUCH* better 2011 

Care to put a LiL' jingle in his cup now??


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> Oh but I'm sure he's hoping (hopping) for a *MUCH* better 2011
> 
> Care to put a LiL' jingle in his cup now??




So the criticism, of his pay, is based on what you guys expect the organization will make next year, and what you expect he will take out of it? 


Seems like a lot of speculation, based on a guy working his ass-off, for little in return

PS and no, I don't agree with his positions. But attacking the guy, based on such frivolous reasoning, isn't doing the opposition any good


----------



## Philsuma

His pay is just a portion of it...

The criticism is being slathered around nicely...and correctly, I may add.

He is not the first person to go this route - his brand of conservationism an he certainly won't be the last. They ALL have to endure the spotlight as well as the magnifying glass. Part and parcel...


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> His pay is just a portion of it...



when you mention pay, are you talking about the fantasy you and others concocted in your minds, or the under 7 grand he took in take home pay?




Philsuma said:


> The criticism is being slathered around nicely...and correctly, I may add.


not if it's based on pay, because I know 17 year olds, working at DQ, making more than that. Seriously, the guy is making ***less than*** 125 dollars a week in take home. 



Philsuma said:


> He is not the first person to go this route - his brand of conservationism an he certainly won't be the last. They ALL have to endure the spotlight as well as the magnifying glass. Part and parcel...


What route, phil? Not even being able to afford Jelly for his PB&J sandwiches, while people laughably criticize him for his pay?

Do you not recognize the disconnect with reality here?


----------



## Philsuma

The Doc prolly has 5 _OTHER_ revenue streams and a hottie girlfriend or boyfriend chipping in on the $1,500 / month condo fees....

Yeah....Save the Frogs is his sole income source.

Come on...


----------



## Woodsman

There does seem to be a lot of bitchiness that has devolved here and I think it speaks more to the characters participating in it than the organization you are trying to malign.

Aren't there about a billion other organizayions that you guys could hate on?

He is working toward a ban on the brutal pracitce of wild-collecting frogs and I SUPPORT HIM (and I don't think I'm alone in finding this practice repugnant to those of us who are here because we LOVE frogs).

Richard.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> The Doc prolly has 5 _OTHER_ revenue streams and a hottie girlfriend or boyfriend chipping in on the $1,500 / month condo fees....
> 
> Yeah....Save the Frogs is his sole income source.
> 
> Come on...


then please show some evidence of that, as opposed to simply tossing around accusations because you don't like the guy

I mean, is it ok if I label you a frog smuggler, based on nothing more than not liking what you say? Hell, the harping about his pay is even worse than that, considering the available evidence completely contradicts it


----------



## Philsuma

Brotherly Monkey said:


> then please show some evidence of that, as opposed to simply tossing around accusations because you don't like the guy


I have no like or dislike of the guy, personally. He has made public, some statements that I find disturbing to the hobby and THAT brings forth the ol'e microscope of truth and discernment. He and his organization can withstand a little scrutiny, right?

Evidence? This is a frog hobby forum, not a courtroom. Collective voices and well typed posts are what I consider valuable. Your mileage may vary / differ.


----------



## Boondoggle

Woodsman said:


> He is working toward a ban on the brutal pracitce of wild-collecting frogs and I SUPPORT HIM (and I don't think I'm alone in finding this practice repugnant to those of us who are here because we LOVE frogs).


Leaving any monetary issues aside (because I don't know a thing about his personal finances one way or another) I could not in good faith support an advocate that I agreed with, in principal, on one issue...but disagreed with fundamentally on every other issue I can think of. 

I know you are a proponent of encouraging conversation on these issues (kudos) and see advocates like this as a way to get the conversation rolling, but I think extreme reactionary activism is an ineffective, devisive and a, frankly, silly way to do this.

Could you in good conscience support a political candidate that was pro-censorship, anti-gay rights and wanted to put prayer in schools...all because he agreed with your stance on abortion? (BTW I'm making some assumptions on your political leanings to make a point, not to actually drag any of these topics into this thread...please.) I don't think you would support that candidate, even if they did encourage conversation on a topic you felt was important.

By all means, lets have the conversation, but not one orchestrated by this ass that likens pet ownership to slavery.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> I have no like or dislike of the guy, personally. He has made public, some statements that I find disturbing to the hobby and THAT brings forth the ol'e microscope of truth and discernment. He and his organization can withstand a little scrutiny, right?


Truth and discernment? Your accusations have no basis in fact and are completely contradicted by the evidence at hand



Philsuma said:


> This is a frog hobby forum, not a courtroom. Collective voices and well typed posts are what I consider valuable. Your mileage may vary / differ.


So if everyone thought you were a frog smuggler, you would then be a frog smuggler, despite no evidence indicating so? 

Your position makes no sense. The facts remain the facts, despite how many people believe otherwise





Philsuma said:


> Evidence?


Yes, if you are going to make accusations, the burden of proof rests on you. Regardless if we are in a courtroom or an online forum


----------



## Philsuma

Brotherly Monkey said:


> Truth and discernment? Your accusations have no basis in fact and are completely contradicted by the evidence at hand


The truth and discernment are the tax filings....the mission statements...his prior posts....NOT my accusations.



Brotherly Monkey said:


> So if everyone thought you were a frog smuggler, you would then be a frog smuggler, despite no evidence indicating so?


Exactly. Let the people make the posts. See the recent posts / threads on Derek for example. Evidence? Not near enough to convict in a court of law but here on a hobby forum...PLENTY....enough to make up my mind and i'm sure, a hundred or so other people from all walks of life and demographics.



Brotherly Monkey said:


> Yes, if you are going to make accusations, the burden of proof rests on you. Regardless if we are in a courtroom or an online forum


Wrong-o Monklet ( not meant to be disparaging....just a funny name). Again....you have this hobby forum confused with a court of law. This hobby has already "ruled" on one recent frog theft.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Philsuma said:


> The truth and discernment are the tax filings....the mission statements...his prior posts....NOT my accusations.


you mean the tax filings that reveal a salary of under 125 a week? Again, do you not see the disconnect here?





Philsuma said:


> Exactly. Let the people make the posts. See the recent posts / threads on Derek for example. Evidence? Not near enough to convict in a court of law but here on a hobby forum...PLENTY....enough to make up my mind and i'm sure, a hundred or so other people from all walks of life and demographics.


1) your original remark discounted the need for evidence

2) we have evidence indicated the accusations in question were not true

3) if there was evidence pointing out that Derek was indeed innocent, no amount of people discounting it would change that it exists








Philsuma said:


> Wrong-o Monklet ( not meant to be disparaging....just a funny name). Again....you have this hobby forum confused with a court of law. This hobby has already "ruled" on one recent frog theft.


Not at all: the burden of proof always rests with those making the claim. So if you want to start leveling accusations, be prepared to offer some evidence to support them


----------



## ExoticPocket

jkooiman said:


> Doctor Krigers remark alluded that "frogs in glass boxes are slaves", inferring that the keeping of them therein is basically immoral. There is no asterisk noting that captive bred are "Ok". JVK


 He doesn't say anything about frogs in acylic tanks! Haha. Found a loophole. (Might have acylic wrong though)


----------



## Vermfly

What he gets paid is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I don't care that he takes 20% of the funds from the organization in salary or that it works out to $125/week. I do care that he solicits funding from us to do the work of the organization but thinks that we are the same as slaveholders.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

Vermfly said:


> What he gets paid is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I don't care that he takes 20% of the funds from the organization in salary or that it works out to $125/week. I do care that he solicits funding from us to do the work of the organization but thinks that we are the same as slaveholders.




That's all fine and good, sweet heart. But people were making accusations of him milking his non-profit. Which is clearly not true, based on the available evidence


----------



## Woodsman

This particular incarnation of the "mean girls group" seems to have focused on the word "slave" and have used it to defame someone they don't even know. It's childish, clanish, and a real ugly bore (IMO).

I belong to a lot of the "fringe" groups (as you can imagine) and I can tell you it is a very difficult issue every group faces in getting recognition for their "cause". It would not be at all surprising to me to see such hyperbole in a group's literature. In America these days, it seems like you have "shock" people in order to get their attention.

And, LOOK, he now has all of your attention!!!!!!

If you think this one man is going to take your frogs away from you, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!

If you just want to have a target to malign on some public on-line forum, because you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas (or nobody kissed you on New Year's Eve), there must be better places to have such a bitch fest.

Now, someone had a question about using color enhancements in fruitfly cultures, so I have to go. It would be nice if we could spend this much time talking about frogs (than bitching about other people).

Peace, Richard.




Boondoggle said:


> Leaving any monetary issues aside (because I don't know a thing about his personal finances one way or another) I could not in good faith support an advocate that I agreed with, in principal, on one issue...but disagreed with fundamentally on every other issue I can think of.
> 
> I know you are a proponent of encouraging conversation on these issues (kudos) and see advocates like this as a way to get the conversation rolling, but I think extreme reactionary activism is an ineffective, devisive and a, frankly, silly way to do this.
> 
> Could you in good conscience support a political candidate that was pro-censorship, anti-gay rights and wanted to put prayer in schools...all because he agreed with your stance on abortion? (BTW I'm making some assumptions on your political leanings to make a point, not to actually drag any of these topics into this thread...please.) I don't think you would support that candidate, even if they did encourage conversation on a topic you felt was important.
> 
> By all means, lets have the conversation, but not one orchestrated by this ass that likens pet ownership to slavery.


----------



## Boondoggle

Woodsman said:


> This particular incarnation of the "mean girls group" seems to have focused on the word "slave" and have used it to defame someone they don't even know. It's childish, clanish, and a real ugly bore (IMO).
> 
> I belong to a lot of the "fringe" groups (as you can imagine) and I can tell you it is a very difficult issue every group faces in getting recognition for their "cause". It would not be at all surprising to me to see such hyperbole in a group's literature. In America these days, it seems like you have "shock" people in order to get their attention.
> 
> And, LOOK, he now has all of your attention!!!!!!
> 
> If you think this one man is going to take your frogs away from you, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
> 
> If you just want to have a target to malign on some public on-line forum, because you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas (or nobody kissed you on New Year's Eve), there must be better places to have such a bitch fest.
> 
> Now, someone had a question about using color enhancements in fruitfly cultures, so I have to go. It would be nice if we could spend this much time talking about frogs (than bitching about other people).
> 
> Peace, Richard.


Not maligning, bitching, or being mean here. I've met the gentlemen once and we were both very polite to one another. I even signed one specific petition that I agreed with. That is a world apart from saying I support him.

As far as shocking people into a reaction, I suppose that type of emotional manipulation can serve a purpose, but don't expect me to respect it. To be honest, though, after speaking with this gentleman, I don't believe the term "slave" was accidental or intended as hyperbole at all. I try to re-read a post after I write it to make sure I've said what I meant. I would assume he would give a statement like this the same consideration so I'm going to hold him to it.

He makes an offensive statement (I would suggest anyone feeling pet ownership is like slavery doesn't know very much about slavery) and he is employing hyperbole to get America's attention...

But people here criticize him and they are "mean girls" who didn't get kissed on New Years. 

He feels people shouldn't have frogs in tanks and he deserves your support...

But, if someone feels he is a threat to the hobby, then they are an "IDIOT!!" 

Objectivity? Rationality? 

Also, why did you quote my post if you were only going to make reference to one word and ignore any questions?

Respectfully,

Jeremy


----------



## Azurel

Woodsman said:


> This particular incarnation of the "mean girls group" seems to have focused on the word "slave" and have used it to defame someone they don't even know. It's childish, clanish, and a real ugly bore (IMO).
> 
> I belong to a lot of the "fringe" groups (as you can imagine) and I can tell you it is a very difficult issue every group faces in getting recognition for their "cause". It would not be at all surprising to me to see such hyperbole in a group's literature. In America these days, it seems like you have "shock" people in order to get their attention.
> 
> And, LOOK, he now has all of your attention!!!!!!
> 
> If you think this one man is going to take your frogs away from you, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
> 
> If you just want to have a target to malign on some public on-line forum, because you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas (or nobody kissed you on New Year's Eve), there must be better places to have such a bitch fest.
> 
> Now, someone had a question about using color enhancements in fruit fly cultures, so I have to go. It would be nice if we could spend this much time talking about frogs (than bitching about other people).
> 
> Peace, Richard.


People like him don't use the words like "slave" to be colorful or to shock, they use them because that is what the believe period. This one guy won't be the one to personally take any frogs. You are right about that but the collective movement of these "environmentalist" will be the ones to use law and regulations to do it.

Maybe not today or tomorrow but only a "fool" or an "idiot" cannot see the agenda they have for the future. It's not just frogs, reptiles, other amphibians that they are attacking or have in thier sites. Any hobby that has biodiversity as the main attraction are their enemy #1. Cause without the hobbies stealing and raping the wilds of planet Earth then all of this life would be free and happy living in the wild dancing on pink cupcakes and swimming in rivers of blue frosting.

With people like him and others just like him there is no middle ground or common sense approach where we can have both sides find common ground of a hobby, sustainable collection and preservation of habitat. It is a be all end all with them, but I know there is no chance for any one of us in this thread that is going to change his, your, or others minds that think like you do. 

So in the end it is nothing but chasing our tails.

Clanish? There is nothing more clanish then these eviro movements and their members.....Free thinkers? I think not.


I am still waiting for links to the post or threads that showed how smuggling is "universally" accepted practice by members here or in the hobby.


----------



## JJuchems

Woodsman said:


> This particular incarnation of the "mean girls group" seems to have focused on the word "slave" and have used it to defame someone they don't even know. It's childish, clanish, and a real ugly bore (IMO).


Using such wording (slave) should not be taken lightly. You can take it lightly, but I will not. I believe our country fought a war that slavery was part of the issue. Women and children are stolen into a life of slavery still today. I am not going to add a human term to animals. Are their best practices in importing, yes. Are they being followed, not always. If you do not support WC frogs, don't own them. They all have WC origins. If your going to make a blanket term of "slave" frogs then it refers to all ownership, including institutions and zoos/aquria. Don't many zoo's keep species for human amusement? Dr. Kerry Kriger has posted here and has the opportunity to defend himself. 



Woodsman said:


> I belong to a lot of the "fringe" groups (as you can imagine) and I can tell you it is a very difficult issue every group faces in getting recognition for their "cause". It would not be at all surprising to me to see such hyperbole in a group's literature. In America these days, it seems like you have "shock" people in order to get their attention.
> 
> And, LOOK, he now has all of your attention!!!!!!


Because it is realiy mature to slant or distort issues to get attention. 





Woodsman said:


> If you think this one man is going to take your frogs away from you, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!


He is one person, a person who can count and bring forth numbers of people through donations/members. He represents a group (Save the Frogs!) and when making public statements/lectures he can make statements of his supporters. One more person/group to add to the ranks of PETA and Humane Society.


----------



## Woodsman

Given that you just joined in August, I'll recommend the "search" function....




Azurel said:


> People like him don't use the words like "slave" to be colorful or to shock, they use them because that is what the believe period. This one guy won't be the one to personally take any frogs. You are right about that but the collective movement of these "environmentalist" will be the ones to use law and regulations to do it.
> 
> Maybe not today or tomorrow but only a "fool" or an "idiot" cannot see the agenda they have for the future. It's not just frogs, reptiles, other amphibians that they are attacking or have in thier sites. Any hobby that has biodiversity as the main attraction are their enemy #1. Cause without the hobbies stealing and raping the wilds of planet Earth then all of this life would be free and happy living in the wild dancing on pink cupcakes and swimming in rivers of blue frosting.
> 
> With people like him and others just like him there is no middle ground or common sense approach where we can have both sides find common ground of a hobby, sustainable collection and preservation of habitat. It is a be all end all with them, but I know there is no chance for any one of us in this thread that is going to change his, your, or others minds that think like you do.
> 
> So in the end it is nothing but chasing our tails.
> 
> Clanish? There is nothing more clanish then these eviro movements and their members.....Free thinkers? I think not.
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for links to the post or threads that showed how smuggling is "universally" accepted practice by members here or in the hobby.


----------



## frogfreak

Woodsman said:


> In America these days, it seems like you have "shock" people in order to get their attention.
> 
> And, LOOK, he now has all of your attention!!!!!!


You nailed that one Richard. Not just America, the whole world.

Just look at the pics they showed of the Canadian seal hunt...


----------



## Vermfly

I almost joined in September before finding out about his real intentions. That is why I created this thread, so that people in our comminity wouldn't help out Dr. Kriger and his organization that compares us to slaveholders.


----------



## Woodsman

I'm sorry, Jeremy. My little tirade wasn't actually directed toward you. I just get tired of threads that go on endlessly about nothing at all. Every few weeks someone grabs the trumpet here and calls everyone to freak out that someone is coming for our frogs. After you've seen this over and over over the years, it just seems as though we could be looking at the issues more productively.

Maybe there could be reforms within the hobby that we could support. We have all seen thousands of wild-collected animals at shows in just miserable conditions, being sold to people who take them home and kill them. There IS a lot of cruelty in our hobby and, whenever anyone here tries to point that out, they are ridiculed and maligned by people who should be supportive of reform.

I don't want to take anyone's frogs away, but if we can't participate in making things better, no one should be surprised that we'll become a target of those "environmentalists" (of which I am one).

Sorry again for any offense, Richard.



Boondoggle said:


> Not maligning, bitching, or being mean here. I've met the gentlemen once and we were both very polite to one another. I even signed one specific petition that I agreed with. That is a world apart from saying I support him.
> 
> As far as shocking people into a reaction, I suppose that type of emotional manipulation can serve a purpose, but don't expect me to respect it. To be honest, though, after speaking with this gentleman, I don't believe the term "slave" was accidental or intended as hyperbole at all. I try to re-read a post after I write it to make sure I've said what I meant. I would assume he would give a statement like this the same consideration so I'm going to hold him to it.
> 
> He makes an offensive statement (I would suggest anyone feeling pet ownership is like slavery doesn't know very much about slavery) and he is employing hyperbole to get America's attention...
> 
> But people here criticize him and they are "mean girls" who didn't get kissed on New Years.
> 
> He feels people shouldn't have frogs in tanks and he deserves your support...
> 
> But, if someone feels he is a threat to the hobby, then they are an "IDIOT!!"
> 
> Objectivity? Rationality?
> 
> Also, why did you quote my post if you were only going to make reference to one word and ignore any questions?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Jeremy


----------



## Woodsman

Now that you pointed them out, I think I'll join Save the Frogs. I think they have better ideas for reform than any that have been offered here.

Richard



Vermfly said:


> I almost joined in September before finding out about his real intentions. That is why I created this thread, so that people in our comminity wouldn't help out Dr. Kriger and his organization that compares us to slaveholders.


----------



## Vermfly

Do you believe in the total erradication of the herp hobby? If so they are the group for you.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Has anyone actually looked at this tool's website?

Kerry Kriger

It's painfully obvious that everything this guy does is designed to draw as much attention to himself as possible. So yes I think the term "slaves" was pretty deliberate. I actually don't think that is what he believes more like a calculated effort by "A Media Whore" to draw as much attention to himself as possible and fatten up his revenue streams.


----------



## Woodsman

If we can't get our act together, don't be surprised if the decision is taken out of our hands.

And, I would prefer it if you could stop cursing at me in your Pms. It is unbecoming of a member here.

Richard.



Vermfly said:


> Do you believe in the total erradication of the herp hobby? If so they are the group for you.


----------



## Woodsman

DING! DING! DING!

So why are we giving this particular media whore so much attention. I'd rather be having a rant about how much I hate Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Then you'd see me on board!

Richard.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Has anyone actually looked at this tool's website?
> 
> Kerry Kriger
> 
> It's painfully obvious that everything this guy does is designed to draw as much attention to himself as possible. So yes I think the term "slaves" was pretty deliberate. I actually don't think that is what he believes more like a calculated effort by "A Media Whore" to draw as much attention to himself as possible and fatten up his revenue streams.


----------



## Vermfly

Your implied swear is no less offensive but definitely more 4th grade. I'd prefer if you'd go away and be Dr. Kriger's personal troll somewhere else.


----------



## Woodsman

Given that I have been in the hobby for fourteen years and have never met this man, your need to continue to refer to me as his "troll" (that must be some term the little kiddies use these days) is simply a declaration that you have nothing more to add. I know you started the thread and you want to defend it to your death, but I think a lot of the oldtimers will look at this whole thread and fall dead asleep with boredom from it.

So, I may be a troll, but you are worse. You are a BORE.

Richard.



Vermfly said:


> Your implied swear is no less offensive but definitely more 4th grade. I'd prefer if you'd go away and be Dr. Kriger's personal troll somewhere else.


----------



## Boondoggle

Woodsman said:


> I'm sorry, Jeremy. My little tirade wasn't actually directed toward you. I just get tired of threads that go on endlessly about nothing at all. Every few weeks someone grabs the trumpet here and calls everyone to freak out that someone is coming for our frogs. After you've seen this over and over over the years, it just seems as though we could be looking at the issues more productively.
> 
> Maybe there could be reforms within the hobby that we could support. We have all seen thousands of wild-collected animals at shows in just miserable conditions, being sold to people who take them home and kill them. There IS a lot of cruelty in our hobby and, whenever anyone here tries to point that out, they are ridiculed and maligned by people who should be supportive of reform.
> 
> I don't want to take anyone's frogs away, but if we can't participate in making things better, no one should be surprised that we'll become a target of those "environmentalists" (of which I am one).
> 
> Sorry again for any offense, Richard.



No offense taken at all, Richard.

I think we agree on the majority of points regarding this issue. I too am sickened when I sickly WC animals on vendors tables that I know the clock is ticking on. I also have made the choice not to own any WC animals, at least at this time. The idea of Saving the Frogs is dear to my heart as well. 

I just think "all or nothing" approaches on either side of the argument aren't realistic. Also, when I spoke to this guy I personally found him disingenuous and intentionally deceptive about his goals.

Cheers


*Wow, there were a lot of posts put up in the time it took me to type this!


----------



## mantisdragon91

Woodsman said:


> DING! DING! DING!
> 
> So why are we giving this particular media whore so much attention. I'd rather be having a rant about how much I hate Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Then you'd see me on board!
> 
> Richard.


I hate those two bobbing head dolls as much as anyone, but last time I checked this was a dart site and not a political chat room. I'm certainly not going on CNN to rant about Save The Frogs. 

The fact that this guy is Australian only adds to the WC hypocrisy. This is a country that will not allow anyone to export their wild life yet thinks nothing of having their farmers shoot and poison tens of thousands of the same animals that they are supposedly protecting from exportation every year. The Aussie motto kind of matches what you have been proposing on this thread "Better dead and buried than in captivity"


----------



## Azurel

Woodsman said:


> Given that you just joined in August, I'll recommend the "search" function....


Nice try with the "just joined" game.....Not gonna work. I am no dummy to advanced hobbies or researching information. The lack of time as a member here does not mean I am not familiar with these issues.

I have read 100s of old threads and post since joining and have not come across a thread that said "smuggling is acceptable" in theory or in practice.

Your the one that stated it I am looking for you to expand on it...Why should I have to do the foot work for you and your position? Maybe it will change my mind on that position in the hobby.....

I have been dealing with people like Dr.K an his ilk for 25 years in the reefing hobby. It's mostly the same arguments in that hobby as it is here, with these same types of threads and arguments. 

What I have not seen from these organizations is a common sense approach that both sides can agree on and support. I am willing to support with my hard earned money a org or approach where we can have both sides. I have done it in marine ornamentals and would be willing here as well. But I cannot support a all or nothing agenda with hobbyist with the nothing end of the stick.


----------



## billschwinn

Woodsman said:


> DING! DING! DING!
> 
> So why are we giving this particular media whore so much attention. I'd rather be having a rant about how much I hate Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Then you'd see me on board!
> 
> Richard.


All right Richard, you leave Glenn Beck out of this!


----------



## Tony

Woodsman said:


> Now that you pointed them out, I think I'll join Save the Frogs. I think they have better ideas for reform than any that have been offered here.
> 
> Richard


I take it you will start by releasing all of your poor, mistreated slaves? At least you wouldn't have any reason to be here anymore...


----------



## Woodsman

Don't worry, Tony. I'm not going anywhere so long as the bullies keep the fight up, so will I.

I have to wonder that you note that you are a TWI/ASN member and have such strong anti-conservation views, perhaps you better rethink this membership.

Richard.



Tony said:


> I take it you will start by releasing all of your poor, mistreated slaves? At least you wouldn't have any reason to be here anymore...


----------



## Woodsman

Say it ain't so, Bill, say it ain't so!!!

Richard.



billschwinn said:


> All right Richard, you leave Glenn Beck out of this!


----------



## Scott

Richard - feel free to forward those pm's to a moderator if he cannot express his views without vulgarity.

s


Woodsman said:


> If we can't get our act together, don't be surprised if the decision is taken out of our hands.
> 
> And, I would prefer it if you could stop cursing at me in your Pms. It is unbecoming of a member here.
> 
> Richard.


----------



## fleshfrombone

There's a difference between being an environmentalist and being an overbearing proponent of nanny state politics. That guy supports extremism and his organization is ridiculous and shouldn't be payed any mind. I'm joining smuggle the frogs to maintain the karmic balance.

BTW I'm still waiting for those threads supporting smuggling.


----------



## Tony

Woodsman said:


> Don't worry, Tony. I'm not going anywhere so long as the bullies keep the fight up, so will I.
> 
> I have to wonder that you note that you are a TWI/ASN member and have such strong anti-conservation views, perhaps you better rethink this membership.
> 
> Richard.


Why would you join the bullies and fight to destroy your own hobby? And if you feel so strongly, why keep frogs at all? Are you somehow the only exception to the rule of hobbyists being slave owning, smuggling, thieving, nature-raping scum? 

As for TWI my disagreements with some of their policies and actions are no secret, but trying to paint me as anti-conservation just because I don't toe the party line of animal rights extremists (Kriger) or vaguely anti-hobby hobbyists (TWI) is silly.


----------



## fleshfrombone

Couldn't agree more Tony.


----------



## Vermfly

Scott said:


> Richard - feel free to forward those pm's to a moderator if he cannot express his views without vulgarity.
> 
> s



If he doesn't want to read it tell him not to IM me whining and using slightly edited cursing first. This site is becoming a gathering of wimps and tattletales. Stop coddling them and maybe they'll grow a little spine.


----------



## Woodsman

Aren't you the guy running around here complaining (obsessively) that no one uses the search function?

I would recommend key word "fred".

Richard.



fleshfrombone said:


> There's a difference between being an environmentalist and being an overbearing proponent of nanny state politics. That guy supports extremism and his organization is ridiculous and shouldn't be payed any mind. I'm joining smuggle the frogs to maintain the karmic balance.
> 
> BTW I'm still waiting for those threads supporting smuggling.


----------



## Scott

He has views. You have views.

"Whining" does not equal vulgarity.

"Coddle them"? Please ...

s



Vermfly said:


> If he doesn't want to read it tell him not to IM me whining and using slightly edited cursing first. This site is becoming a gathering of wimps and tattletales. Stop coddling them and maybe they'll grow a little spine.


----------



## Scott

I have been convinced to give this thread one more try. I'm not convinced there is much more to be said here, but this thread is at "two strikes". 

Keep it on topic people. Try to respect each other as well.

s


----------



## fleshfrombone

Woodsman said:


> Aren't you the guy running around here complaining (obsessively) that no one uses the search function?
> 
> I would recommend key word "fred".
> 
> Richard.


Please, I know exactly what you're talking about and no one on there condoned smuggling. I don't complain, I correct with the back of my hand. Aren't you the guy running around here complaining (obsessively) about *everything*? I find it funny you can't argue a single point with me without deflecting from the actual discussion. Are your principles on such a shaky foundation (or you actually recognize your own hypocrisy without addressing it) they can't stand on their own merits? Maybe it's time to take an honest look at them and change accordingly.


----------



## savethefrogs

*An open letter from the Founder of SAVE THE FROGS!*

Hi, 
It looks like I found out about the "Truth about SAVE THE FROGS!" thread after it got closed, so I'll post a few thoughts here.

1 - For those who never saw my email that elicited the thread, you can read it here:
December 30th, 2010 Newsletter

2 - I feel honored to have a thought of mine elicit 200 pages and 21 replies, as the first step on the path towards any type of change is for people to be aware of the issues at hand (in this case holding an animal in captivity). The thread in question shows that my hard work to save amphibians is paying off in my abilities to get my thoughts -- the vast majority of which I am quite certain all of you agree with -- out to the general public and others who should hear them. For those unfamiliar with my other though amphibious thoughts, you can look through some of the 150+ pages of savethefrogs.com, the vast majority of which I wrote.

3- I apologize that I did not have time to read the entire 21 pages but I did read a few replies. Thanks to Woodsman who said "I find it hard to believe that none of the other keepers here occasionally feel that the tanks we keep our frogs in are NOT a good approximation of the wild and that we do deprive them of a "free" life."

4 - Indeed Vermfly, my choice of words was not without forethought, and I did not expect my words to go unnoticed. As I stated earlier on this website, I have been fortunate enough to have traveled around the world, unfettered by any captor/owner/keeper, free to experience the joys of the world and the beauty of nature. My travels have shaped who I am and what I deem important, including my desire to save frogs from extinction, and to teach others about the importance of preserving ecosystems and natural places. I have pity for the organism bound by the intents and desires of another, with a world view carved out by someone else, a mate forced on them against their will (or no mate ever presented), no chance to pursue their dreams or experience the world outside. I know that no reader of this post would wish such a fate onto themselves or their children. So who are we to justify keeping amphibians in a way that we would never consider acceptable for humans? 

I don't accept the prevailing anthropocentric viewpoint that humans are superior to all other animals and thus we have the right to keep them captive. 500 years ago astronomers were persecuted for voicing their thoughts that the stars did not revolve around the Earth; now almost everybody accepts that the Earth is not the center of the universe. 150 years ago battles raged across the eastern USA because half our citizens felt it was their right to hold black people captive as slaves; now human slavery is unthinkable, thanks to the hard work of those who questioned societal norms. Societies change, but only with hard work and determination. I would like to think that 150 years from now it will be unthinkable to hold amphibians captive against their will. 

Is the accomplishment of that vision my top priority in life? Far from it. The security and perpetuity of wild amphibian populations and ecosystems is my top goal, as it is for SAVE THE FROGS!. And if you look at our list of accomplishments for 2010, you will see that our actions reflect this:
SAVE THE FROGS! 2010 List of Activities & Accomplishments

Do I have plans to campaign for laws against holding amphibians in captivity? No. Do I plan to stage ALF-style liberations? No. Do I plan to educate people about the ethical issues involved and let them decide for themselves? I sure am.

Does this make me a loon as Azurel calls me? No, it makes me a guy who questions societal norms, and it makes me a guy who's not so apathetic as to sit back and accept the dominant paradigm. Am I self-appointed as Azurel calls me? ("Either way we will always have to deal with these self appointed enlightened ones that think they are smarter, more intelligent then us animal slave masters and they will always be "the be all end all" to "Saving the world from itself and you"). I think a more appropriate term would be hard-working. I spent 4 years working on my Ph.D. at a significant net monetary loss. I worked full-time unpaid the first 18 months of SAVE THE FROGS!. I took two days off in November and two days off in December. I wrote the email that elicited this thread late night December 29th when most of the country was relaxing with their families. If my views get heard it is because I work hard.

Azurel, you should also be aware that I have never heard of Friends of Animals (though from their name, they certainly sound like well-meaning folks). Also, SAVE THE FROGS! has never entered into a campaign with PETA.

5- To the person in the thread who wanted to archive my past comments, please do not forget my recent posting that was a link to the letter I recently sent the USFWS regarding the Lacey Act proposal.

6- All the readers of this post want wild amphibians saved from extinction I am certain. Would the extinction of wild amphibians be justified solely to ensure that your pet frogs remained safe in your homes? To wish for the failure of SAVE THE FROGS! (as many of you have voiced) is to make it significantly more likely that amphibian extinctions continue and perhaps even accelerate. Is that an egotistical statement? No. The value of SAVE THE FROGS! is extremely clear, as can be seen from our list of 2010 accomplishments (bear in mind that SAVE THE FROGS! was started with $3,000 total dollars and is less than three years old) -- 
SAVE THE FROGS! 2010 List of Activities & Accomplishments

The future of wild amphibian populations depends in no small part on SAVE THE FROGS' ability to rapidly and thoroughly achieve our mission, which is to protect amphibian populations and promote a society that respects and appreciates nature and wildlife. The vast potential of SAVE THE FROGS! to contribute significantly to the continued existence of many amphibian species of whom we all share a common interest in is extremely clear, and I am quite certain that the vast majority of you also wish for the accomplishment of the SAVE THE FROGS' 2011 goals I listed in the email of mine that elicited this thread.

SAVE THE FROGS! welcomes the support of all those who want to help, and I encourage everybody to give a public presentation on amphibians on the 3rd Annual Save The Frogs Day, Friday April 29th.

As a final note, to the best of my understanding only 15% of the amphibians sold in the USA are captive-raised. If anybody would like to help conduct a survey of the amphibian trade to more accurately gauge that number and to determine which amphibians are most under threat from over-harvesting (so that we can educate potential buyers to steer clear), please contact SAVE THE FROGS!. Note that the end result of this study would likely be an upsurge in demand for captive-raised amphibians.

Sincerely,
Dr. Kerry Kriger
Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist


----------



## bshmerlie

It's sad to see when a discussion like this ends with name calling and immaturity. This argument has been done with "gun control", "anti hunting", "global warming", "republican Vs democrat",...you name it. Its just differing opinions and nobody is a "Troll" or an "idiot" for having a differnt opinion. I respect both sides of this argument and both are legitimate ideas...although different. The guy who said that "frogs are slaves" choose those words very specifically to "get people to donate money". Thats it...you'll see that in every political election... Devisive words to get people's attention. Now Richard, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your stand point is that we as a hobby should do more to help the industry to get away from the need to import wild collected animals. Also to make sure that if they are wild collected animals that it is done in a regulated fashion to ensure the animals are cared for properly to ensure that we don't have mass killings due to negligence. If our own hobby could produce enough CB animals to meet our demands then the need for WC would reduce which would be a good thing. I dont' think anyone here has suggested that plants and animals should not be collected out of any area where their habitat is being leveled or burned. I for one do not buy animals that have been wild caught. Is that to say that I never will... No I would not say that because I don't think any issue is every black and white. But as a hobby we should be more about conservation. We should care where the WC frogs are coming from and how they got here and how they are taken care of. We should want to make sure that frogs that are brought into our country should be tested for Chytrid fungus and then kept at the proper facilities to treat them before they are released into the hobby. I think what Richard is saying that we should manage ourselves better or some government agency will. Thats when they come up with stupid ideas about testing for Chytrid when shipping between states in our own country. As a hobby we need to take care of our own. Meet our own supply demands. Demand Chytrid free imports. Properly document exactly where the frogs are coming from and how many were taken out of a particular area. Only allow importers to continue if they can prove that they have a very high survival rate of the animals that they have collected. There is no reason this argument has gone down the path that it has. And no I don't think anyone here on this forum thinks of their frogs as slaves if they did they would not own frogs in the first place.


----------



## james67

*Re: An open letter from the Founder of SAVE THE FROGS!*

and the new "fred" arrives....

james.

p.s. while we almost all certainly want to see the continued existence of these animals in the wild, you do realize that this is a forum of people who keep frogs "captive", correct?


----------



## fleshfrombone

*Re: An open letter from the Founder of SAVE THE FROGS!*

G'day mate, now go smash some cockatoos instead of exporting them, yay conservation!


----------



## bshmerlie

Come on...21 pages on "frogs as slaves"?.....only on Dendroboard.

Gotta love it.


----------



## james67

bshmerlie: when board members are reporting (scratch that/ tattling on ) each other to the federal authorities its gone too far. and with what evidence??????

this is a HOBBY! you want to reform it with chytrid testing and reducing WC........ give me a break, take a step off your high horse and come back down to the reality of the situation. im sorry i can only hold my tongue so long. 

james


----------



## billschwinn

*Re: An open letter from the Founder of SAVE THE FROGS!*

Ok, #4, The frogs are not free to pursue their dreams, Really? Really? And then forced to mate , wow,I am in a dry spell, wish I was a frog!


----------



## Chris Miller

*Re: An open letter from the Founder of SAVE THE FROGS!*

I'm going to lock this until it can be merged into another thread (don't know how yet). I wish we didn't act as a bully pulpit for this guy. Not to mention that every time he posts and cross links his site he becomes more relevant in search results. 

We should be proactive instead of reactionary in subjects like these.


----------



## bshmerlie

I'm sorry which High Horse am I on and which reality am I supposed to come down to....yours? I am a hunter...I go deer hunting every October. I can only do that in 2011 because there are controls and regulations. There are deer tags that are issued for certain dates that ensure that there will be enough deer around for the next season. Regulations...yes... but NEEDed regulations. I just don't see how pilaging and poisoning our planet should be a right simply because we can. We learned in the USA that we shouldn't dump waste into rivers and steams, we should have cars that don't produce so many emissions, we shouldn't cut down our forests with wild abandon, hunt animals to extintion, etc, etc. All these things we did as a developing nation. Now that we have learned these things and have seen the results we have reglated ourselves to protect our environment and the animals that live in it. Now there are other developing nations that will follow our same path. James I don't know if you've seen the reality of it...but maybe you should get away from your narrow point of view and visit a 3rd world country and see how a good portion of our planet lives. People pissing in the streets and dumping their sewage in the rivers...that's reality. I don't think increasing breeding production of common frogs that are kept in the hobby to help reduce wild caught is being on the "high horse" ....a lofty goal yes...but the reality of it is...IT CAN BE DONE. Am I encouraging government regulation?...Absolutly NOT. As a hobby we should demand higher expectations from importers...and should they be responsible for Chytrid free frogs?... absolutly. Why NOT make them responsible for what they are trying to bring into the country? If we bring a dog or a cat into the US we have to make sure it has been vacinated, doesn't carry rabies...etc, etc, I am not suggesting we stop WC imports or reduce their numbers. All I'm saying is that if we increase the SUPPLY of CB frogs it will lower the DEMAND of WC frogs. Supply and Demand... you do remember that from economics, don't you?


----------



## james67

well i guess i just dont make the money you do. when your paying the exporter / importer to certify that every animal is Bd free we'll see how you feel. responsible keepers prevent the spread of Bd by using proper techniques for disposing of waste, and treating affected animals. many hobbyists spread 

we'll just have to disagree on WC frogs. i enjoy working with obligates, and i hope to work with new morphs (which would have to come from wild stock) in the future. i wouldnt mind seeing some other frogs in the country as well.

james


----------



## mantisdragon91

Let me take a slightly diffrent track on this discussion. By now everyone here should understand how I feel about WC animals and the need to provide homes to species being burned out of existence by subsistence farmers. However I don't necessarily think that WC animals should be sold as cheap, dispossable pets to newbies either.

The idea that I have seen floated around in the gecko and chameleon world and that I would like to see discussed here, is the possibility of a licensing system where WC animals can only be sold to people who have demonstrated a certain level of experience and dedication to the hobby. They in turn can breed the animals and distribute the offspring to the general publice. Now before anyone asks, I know the devil is in the details, and I am not sure how to go about setting something like this up, although I do have some ideas. Wanted to see what everyone else's thoughts on this would be?


----------



## markpulawski

mantisdragon91 said:


> Let me take a slightly diffrent track on this discussion. By now everyone here should understand how I feel about WC animals and the need to provide homes to species being burned out of existence by subsistence farmers. However I don't necessarily think that WC animals should be sold as cheap, dispossable pets to newbies either.
> 
> The idea that I have seen floated around in the gecko and chameleon world and that I would like to see discussed here, is the possibility of a licensing system where WC animals can only be sold to people who have demonstrated a certain level of experience and dedication to the hobby. They in turn can breed the animals and distribute the offspring to the general publice. Now before anyone asks, I know the devil is in the details, and I am not sure how to go about setting something like this up, although I do have some ideas. Wanted to see what everyone else's thoughts on this would be?


This is an excellent suggestion and in the perfect world would be the perfect set of circumstances, like certifying all frogs shipped are Chytrid free. Taking baby steps to this end is acceptable but a lot of work is involved and unfortunately expense and that is likely where the dream ends.


----------



## Roadrunner

We haven't really learned anything aout poisoning our streams and cutting down our forests, well we've learned we just don't do much about it.



bshmerlie said:


> I'm sorry which High Horse am I on and which reality am I supposed to come down to....yours? I am a hunter...I go deer hunting every October. I can only do that in 2011 because there are controls and regulations. There are deer tags that are issued for certain dates that ensure that there will be enough deer around for the next season. Regulations...yes... but NEEDed regulations. I just don't see how pilaging and poisoning our planet should be a right simply because we can. We learned in the USA that we shouldn't dump waste into rivers and steams, we should have cars that don't produce so many emissions, we shouldn't cut down our forests with wild abandon, hunt animals to extintion, etc, etc. All these things we did as a developing nation. Now that we have learned these things and have seen the results we have reglated ourselves to protect our environment and the animals that live in it. Now there are other developing nations that will follow our same path. James I don't know if you've seen the reality of it...but maybe you should get away from your narrow point of view and visit a 3rd world country and see how a good portion of our planet lives. People pissing in the streets and dumping their sewage in the rivers...that's reality. I don't think increasing breeding production of common frogs that are kept in the hobby to help reduce wild caught is being on the "high horse" ....a lofty goal yes...but the reality of it is...IT CAN BE DONE. Am I encouraging government regulation?...Absolutly NOT. As a hobby we should demand higher expectations from importers...and should they be responsible for Chytrid free frogs?... absolutly. Why NOT make them responsible for what they are trying to bring into the country? If we bring a dog or a cat into the US we have to make sure it has been vacinated, doesn't carry rabies...etc, etc, I am not suggesting we stop WC imports or reduce their numbers. All I'm saying is that if we increase the SUPPLY of CB frogs it will lower the DEMAND of WC frogs. Supply and Demand... you do remember that from economics, don't you?


----------



## Roadrunner

And where does the travel money come in? He has posted something about being jet set all over the globe, that counts for something.


Brotherly Monkey said:


> you mean the tax filings that reveal a salary of under 125 a week? Again, do you not see the disconnect here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) your original remark discounted the need for evidence
> 
> 2) we have evidence indicated the accusations in question were not true
> 
> 3) if there was evidence pointing out that Derek was indeed innocent, no amount of people discounting it would change that it exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all: the burden of proof always rests with those making the claim. So if you want to start leveling accusations, be prepared to offer some evidence to support them


----------



## zBrinks

OKAY EVERYONE!


You disagree with the stance of 'Save the Frogs' - what are you going to do about it?


----------



## frogfreak

markpulawski said:


> This is an excellent suggestion and in the perfect world would be the perfect set of circumstances, like certifying all frogs shipped are Chytrid free. Taking baby steps to this end is acceptable but a lot of work is involved and unfortunately expense and that is likely where the dream ends.


I lkie the idea as well. I don't think it's a dream Mark. People just need to be willing to pay a few dollars more is all. What would it add to the cost/frog $18? In time, the tests would become more economical. I would be more than willing to shell out a few extra bucks to know that they are certified bd free. It would save a lot of work on my end. This could also end the needless importation of frogs, that are sent to pet stores in huge numbers. In turn, they could look more to cb frogs and not wc.


----------



## Woodsman

Hi James,

I think Mark Pepper has made it clear that wild-collecting (and the uglier practice of frog smuggling) is unnecessary (as all of the frogs he offers are captive-bred). If you feel this strongly about obligate egg-feeders, perhaps working with Mark (or creating a program for yourself in the appropriate countires) would be the way to make your interests become a reality. This could be a very important step forward for the hobby.

Richard.



james67 said:


> well i guess i just dont make the money you do. when your paying the exporter / importer to certify that every animal is Bd free we'll see how you feel. responsible keepers prevent the spread of Bd by using proper techniques for disposing of waste, and treating affected animals. many hobbyists spread
> 
> we'll just have to disagree on WC frogs. i enjoy working with obligates, and i hope to work with new morphs (which would have to come from wild stock) in the future. i wouldnt mind seeing some other frogs in the country as well.
> 
> james


----------



## mantisdragon91

I'm actually thinking about something along the lines of a USDA certification similar to what you have for small animal breeders in order to be allowed to purchase WC animals. Again I think you would be looking at short term pain and increase in costs but long term it would benefit the hobby since breeders would no longer be competing with $20 mantellas and $30 auratus at shows and can charge what the frogs really cost to produce and care for properly. Looking further down the line you may even have USDA certified breeders working together to place orders with importers so that every WC animal coming into the country already has a home when it arrives.


----------



## Roadrunner

Unfortunately, since MOST people look for the cheaper price, the people doing the right thing will never be able to compete w/ the people doing the wrong thing.
And if slaves were treated like most of our frogs are(no whipping or carrying heavy loads, vitamins minerals and food, overweight frogs,breeding at will and us taking care of their offspring, etc.) I don't know that people would be as against slavery as they were.



frogfreak said:


> I lkie the idea as well. I don't think it's a dream Mark. People just need to be willing to pay a few dollars more is all. What would it add to the cost/frog $18? In time, the tests would become more economical. I would be more than willing to shell out a few extra bucks to know that they are certified bd free. It would save a lot of work on my end. This could also end the needless importation of frogs, that are sent to pet stores in huge numbers. In turn, they could look more to cb frogs and not wc.


----------



## Chris Miller

Woodsman said:


> I think Mark Pepper has made it clear that wild-collecting (and the uglier practice of frog smuggling) is unnecessary (as all of the frogs he offers are captive-bred).
> Richard.


Correct, for the hobbyist and the general public, wild caught frogs aren't needed. He used collected frogs to start his project in Peru before sending captive bred frogs north.


----------



## frogfreak

zBrinks said:


> OKAY EVERYONE!
> 
> 
> You disagree with the stance of 'Save the Frogs' - what are you going to do about it?


Hey Zach

I don't disagree with all the things they are doing. How could I? Saving frogs and their habitat. I would think everyone on here wants to see that...

I'm guessing most members just don't like the fact that "Save the frogs" doesn't want frogs held in captivity and the bd state line thing. So, noone will suppoert an organization because of this, despite all the good things that they're doing? I don't like some of the policies that my gov party has in place, but I have to pick my battles and vote accordingly. Same thing here imo. Why does everything have to be so black and white? It doesn't work that way in real life...

It seems to me that most members here would like to do MORE, as a group, to help amphibians in the wild, but lack direction. That's just my take on it all...


----------



## frogfreak

frogfarm said:


> Unfortunately, since MOST people look for the cheaper price, the people doing the right thing will never be able to compete w/ the people doing the wrong thing.


Hey Aaron

You're right, but in this case the cheap option would not be available.


----------



## Roadrunner

Then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately one cannot start this without everyone doing it or it'd be business suicide. WC animals are cheaper, untested and treated frogs are cheaper and underfed/supplemented are cheaper, crammed in tanks of froglets are cheaper, etc.etc.etc.



frogfreak said:


> Hey Aaron
> 
> You're right, but in this case the cheap option would not be available.


----------



## bshmerlie

Finnally a rational conversation where we are discussing solutions. That's what the forum is for. Thanks guys.


----------



## bshmerlie

I think the way Mark Pepper does it is what I see as the ideal situation. Work with a conservation group in a specific country import frogs to a facility that could breed them and those offspring would be released into the hobby. Are his frogs cheap? None of the ones I've bought from him have been. But that way ensures all frogs going into the hobby are Chytrid free. No need for govt regulations, no need for BD testing inbetween states. The only govt interference would be that someone inspects his facility to make sure his frogs are kept in proper and sanitary conditions. That's a win / win solution. Now all we need is another 20 or so Understory Enterprises.


----------



## mantisdragon91

I actually think the best way to do this is to form a working group on here to discuss the best way to move forward with some regulatory policies for our industry and then get other groups like Amphibian Ark involved to present our suggestions to the government. The way I look at it is regulation is coming sooner or later. The question will be whether we drive the discussion or whether we sit back passively and let the regulation be written by others without our input.


----------



## frogfreak

frogfarm said:


> Then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately one cannot start this without everyone doing it or it'd be business suicide. WC animals are cheaper, untested and treated frogs are cheaper and underfed/supplemented are cheaper, crammed in tanks of froglets are cheaper, etc.etc.etc.


Right again Aaron

We are the consumers, therefore we can drive this idea home if we want to. Cosumers have a lot of power! It just needs to be organized. Let it be known that we will not accept this practice anymore. 

If there was enough onboard, I think it would be business suicide not to participate. Maybe it should be us proposing that ALL wc animals have to be tested and treated. That would end the idea that some could not participate and everyone would be on an equal playing field. It could also end the shipments of sick, diseased frogs coming in. What would that do to all those cheap froglets that end up in pet stores. It would come to a halt, as I said before. They would be looking to cb animals because for once they would be the cheaper alternative. 

It is doable...


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

frogfarm said:


> And where does the travel money come in? He has posted something about being jet set all over the globe, that counts for something.



my total cost for spending almost 16 months in india, including airfare, turned out to be under 8 grand. And I wasn't really on a budget. But besides that, I am unsure what you are suggesting here. Is it that the organization is little more than a way to pad his travel expenses? 

To that I would reply "do you think traveling and conducting research would be part of the mission of any organization concerned about animal conservation?"

And regardless, I was responding to specific charges of "fattening his pocket", which as you can see from the orgs tax filings, clearly isn't the case


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

frogfarm said:


> We haven't really learned anything aout poisoning our streams and cutting down our forests, well we've learned we just don't do much about it.


we clearly have environmental regulations in this country. Are they perfect? No Do they sometimes get ignored? Yes. But for anyone who has traveled in a country that doesn't have much environmental protection, at the government level, there is a clear difference


----------



## Roadrunner

So what was the largest cost? Airafare? What if you flew back and forth 20 times in the 18 months, what would it cost then? I'd say it's a pretty good perk the way he talks about the things he's seen. Airfare - ? ,memories - priceless
I have no clue how much it cost or how much he flew,hotels, meals, or anything else that would be a write off for a non profit, etc,etc. 



Brotherly Monkey said:


> my total cost for spending almost 16 months in india, including airfare, turned out to be under 8 grand. And I wasn't really on a budget. But besides that, I am unsure what you are suggesting here. Is it that the organization is little more than a way to pad his travel expenses?
> 
> To that I would reply "do you think traveling and conducting research would be part of the mission of any organization concerned about animal conservation?"
> 
> And regardless, I was responding to specific charges of "fattening his pocket", which as you can see from the orgs tax filings, clearly isn't the case


----------



## Roadrunner

I didn't remember saying anywhere that there wasn't a difference just that we havent learned to do anything about it.

Read my post about onondaga lake, the plant that was fined for releasing cancer causing agents in our air and the chromium in our drinking water, the gulf oil spill, shit I could go on forever, besides, aren't you in Canada? Ours can be much worse with industry. And whose corporations are going down there and polluting those countries? As for logging we've already cleared our country of everything that was standing.

Bigger equipment, bigger disasters. 




Brotherly Monkey said:


> we clearly have environmental regulations in this country. Are they perfect? No Do they sometimes get ignored? Yes. But for anyone who has traveled in a country that doesn't have much environmental protection, at the government level, there is a clear difference


----------



## Scott

That might be a separate thread - maybe you should all move over to Aaron's previous thread on the subject (even though it's in Thunderdome)?

Irony in our clean air and water

s


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

frogfarm said:


> So what was the largest cost? Airafare? What if you flew back and forth 20 times in the 18 months, what would it cost then? I'd say it's a pretty good perk the way he talks about the things he's seen. Airfare - ? ,memories - priceless
> I have no clue how much it cost or how much he flew,hotels, meals, or anything else that would be a write off for a non profit, etc,etc.


posted previously: To that I would reply "do you think traveling and conducting research would be part of the mission of any organization concerned about animal conservation?"


----------



## mantisdragon91

Brotherly Monkey said:


> we clearly have environmental regulations in this country. Are they perfect? No Do they sometimes get ignored? Yes. But for anyone who has traveled in a country that doesn't have much environmental protection, at the government level, there is a clear difference


You truelly are clueless if you believe that our environmental regulations are anywhere near where we need them to be for our safety and that of the environment. As some one who lives in PA I was particularly disturbed by this little gem just released today.

Pa. allows dumping of tainted waters from gas boom - Yahoo! News

For those too lazy to copy and paste the link its all about how the waste water from the natural gas drilling is added right back into our groundwater with little or no treatment.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

frogfarm said:


> the plant that was fined for releasing cancer causing agents in our air and the chromium in our drinking water, the gulf oil spill, shit I could go on forever, besides, aren't you in Canada?


yes, people break laws and accidents happen. That doesn't mean we don't have environmental controls

Also, on the point of clear cutting: society progresses


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

mantisdragon91 said:


> You truelly are clueless if you believe that our environmental regulations are anywhere near where we need them to be for our safety and that of the environment.



Yes, clearly I should have remarked on their imperfect nature in my post. Oh wait :


> Are they perfect? No


----------



## mantisdragon91

Brotherly Monkey said:


> yes, people break laws and accidents happen. That doesn't mean we don't have environmental controls
> 
> Also, on the point of clear cutting: society progresses


Yep progresses right of a cliff, much like the lemmings we so resemble in our behavior and long term planning. As George Carlin once said " We aren't killing the Earth, We're just killing ourselves. The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of dandruff"


----------



## Brotherly Monkey

mantisdragon91 said:


> Yep progresses right of a cliff, much like the lemmings we so resemble in our behavior and long term planning. As George Carlin once said " We aren't killing the Earth, We're just killing ourselves. The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of dandruff"


so you don't think society progresses? I don't know about that, considering we actually developed an environmental awareness in the country, at the government level, over time. Which oddly sounds like society "progressing"


----------



## mantisdragon91

Brotherly Monkey said:


> so you don't think society progresses? I don't know about that, considering we actually developed an environmental awareness in the country, at the government level, over time. Which oddly sounds like society "progressing"


Based on the last 8 years of the previous "business friendly" administration as well as the wave of "business friendly" politicians elected at the state and federal level, I would say that we are actually going backwards when it comes to environmental policy.


----------



## Scott

OK folks - next off topic post is an infraction. Who wants it?

I agree that YOUR topic is important. But it is not germane to the THREAD TOPIC.

Start a new thread if you wish. Stay on topic.

s


----------



## MonarchzMan

I can get back on topic (maybe?). Being in Costa Rica means that I've not been able to follow this thread, and I don't have the time (or battery life) to read 25 pages of posts. So, based on the few that I have read...

My prof recently had a back-and-forth with Dr. Kriger about the USFWS proposal and forwarded it onto me (and apologies if Zach already covered this). It was a pretty revealing conversation. Long story short is that Dr. Kriger appears to be on a mission regardless of the facts involved. He asserted that the pet trade promotes chytrid spread, and my prof argued that there was not enough evidence to suggest that, and pointed to the preliminary results of the TWI study. Dr. Kriger waved off the TWI study saying that he could not see the results, so the prevalence of chytrid in dart frogs is meaningless. And he continued along this PETA-like tirade.

I am of the opinion that Dr. Kriger's heart is in the right place, but application is not. He's currently trying to fight against the pet trade which has many strong advocates for disease-free, captive bred species prevailing through the trade. I can understand that it is very frustrating to see a problem such as chytrid, and have not real solution for it, so grabbing at any possibility is the only option. Make no mistake, I certainly do not support his stance, but I can see where he is coming from.

Now, onto the stance of the hobby on wild collection. This I find particularly humorous, and largely untrue. Everyone, in word, is against wild collection, but in action, it is very, very different. If this were true, then exporters would not be importing frogs, and the hobby would not be sucking them up faster than they can be collected. It's easy to see. The next time a group of new morphs or species come into the U.S., they'll be sucked up incredibly quickly. I mean, look at what happened with the El Dorado pumilio. Once those came in, it seemed like everyone and their mom had to have one, even though they were all wild caught (believe if you want that they're farm raised, but that's as big a lie as I have ever seen). I can guarantee that if I brought some pumilio in that I would have no problem getting rid of them.

So I guess that we should not pee on someone's leg and call it rain. If _you_ are again wild collection, excellent, keep it up. But the hobby is anything but against wild collection.


----------



## Azurel

I don't think it is a question being against wild collection but the idea that the hobby is "universally accepting" smuggling. Wild collection is fine with me as long as there are standards CITIES( although it has issues). I think most folks in this hobby and others like it would like to see a common sense approach with wild collection and sustainability. 

This is a big issue in the reefing hobby as well and in that they have come along way with some of the organizations going to collection points and training the people that collect and showing them how to do it with out destroying the habitat and methods to allow the marine life to recoup the losses due to collection.....I think there could be some of the same things applied with darts, but I am not fully educated on the collection and/or how the collection in the field is done......I also think that most people would have no issue with the cost going up on these frogs if they knew that things were being done in a proper sustainable way. I know I paid a bit more for Marine Aquarium Council (although it has issues as well) certified fish and coral due to what was being done on the ground(or sea) because of their efforts. One of my old fish guys here in Kalamazoo is one of the field trainers for MAC.

I appreciate the insight you might have JP since I know you go down there for research and such...


----------



## Scott

FYI - "Save the Frogs" has a site on Facebook. I noticed yesterday that I had actually liked this Wacko's site. I think that was before more was known.

I saw at least 6 of my friends on Facebook had the site Liked as well.

You may want to review this if you are on Facebook.

s

[edit: obviously I removed the like!


----------



## Vermfly

There is another facebook page called "Save the Frogs! Exposed" that has links to threads here on Dendroboard drawing attention of Dr. Kriger's hypocrisy of asking frog hobbyists to fund his organization while trying to destroy their hobby.


----------



## salix

I took issue with receiving an email "newsletter" from his website. I decided that I must have signed up for info or something, but didn't remember having done that. Then about two days later, my husband received the same newsletter on his email account, totally different account/server, but a shared laptop. My email is a free web based account, his is through a paid server (no longer our service provider).

I know for a fact he never left his email addy on any frog site. He is not a frog person at all, other than tagging along with me.

I have no idea how he received that mailing.

Deb


----------



## zBrinks

Kerry discovered the 'Save the Frogs: Exposed' Facebook page. Tune in for the drama:

Save the Frogs! exposed | Facebook


----------



## Philsuma

zBrinks said:


> Kerry discovered the 'Save the Frogs: Exposed' Facebook page. Tune in for the drama:
> 
> Save the Frogs! exposed | Facebook


Looks like he finally found the site.

Have at it !

A robust, spritely discussion and debate !

I'm tuned in.


----------



## Ed

Thier 2009 form 990EZ can be found here http://www.savethefrogs.com/who-we-are/images/Form 990-EZ STF 2009 FINAL.pdf 


Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan

I am trying to talk some rationality into the guy, but he absolutely refuses to acknowledge other peoples' opinions if they differ from his own. It's really disappointing since he could actually be doing some good and provide a united front on amphibian conservation rather than being divisive and attack a rather large group of people that could be a powerful force for conservation (and are, as evident from TWI).


----------



## Tony

This ought to be fun. JP, I gave you admin powers on the page since you have taken such an interest, feel free to add anything that you think is appropriate.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Haha, I appreciate it. Mostly I would like to see STF be a viable and professional organization in regards to amphibian conservation since I believe it to be very important. That is why I have developed an interest.


----------



## Tony

MonarchzMan said:


> Haha, I appreciate it. Mostly I would like to see STF be a viable and professional organization in regards to amphibian conservation since I believe it to be very important. That is why I have developed an interest.


Short of STF getting a new leader I doubt that will ever happen, but best of luck.


----------



## MonarchzMan

In the meantime, I am fine with pointing out the flaws with his methods.


----------



## MonarchzMan

If I had more time and resources, I would say that we should organize a "Amphibian Conservation Awareness Day" or something like that and actually highlight all possible methods to amphibian conservation, not just a PETA-esque view.


----------



## Ed

MonarchzMan said:


> If I had more time and resources, I would say that we should organize a "Amphibian Conservation Awareness Day" or something like that and actually highlight all possible methods to amphibian conservation, not just a PETA-esque view.


Kind of like International Amphibian Day was? 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan

Yep, that'd work too


----------



## Philsuma

Or Perhaps Frog Day 2011 ?


----------



## JJuchems

Nothing against frog day, but it is centralized in one location with only a small fraction of amphibian enthusiast available to to attend. 

What I would invasion is a program design around one day that multiple locations could be involved. Think 2008 Year of the Frog in one day. Video, lesson plans for teachers, ect. I think we could get this going.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Could be something that TWI could possibly take on? Having a professional organization lends credibility to the event.


----------



## Philsuma

I think,from Talking with Ron, that TWI is investing into Frog Day and putting energy behind it. Some good credibility there.

As far as a bigger venue, centrally located event ect...

We have to walk before we can run. We should all try to support what is available now.

There's a lot of West Coasters that I know, making the trip to NY....


----------



## JJuchems

Time of year is one of the biggest factors keeping me out. I am a teacher, we just don't get time off during the school year. 

Walk before running...I have seen successful other programs get going without the walk.


----------



## skylsdale

Just some thoughts/comments to add to the conversation having both attended and planned some of these events over the last few years:

Online response to these events is always high...but that doesn't always translate into folks traveling from all over the country to attend the event. So you have to do as much as possible to get the word out locally (wherever the event is being held) because it comes down to foot traffic. As a planner, you want the event to be as beneficial for the vendors as possible--some are local, but some may fly across the country or come from a few states away to vend, and that is a lot of cost up front to recoup before they even begin to make any sort of profit. For some this is a hobby and it's not a big deal, for others this is their livelihood.

The forums have no shortage of people making demands and requests as to what a show should be, where it should be, etc. The reality is this: a show is held wherever the person who is willing to organize it lives. This makes the logistics of planning and coordinating the venue and advertising much simpler. I live 2 hours away from the Seattle area, where we held Microcosm this past fall, and even that made things quite difficult and consisted of me making numerous trips just to meet with the hotel event planner, advertise, etc. So when people comment or post and say "Do it in my area!" realize that unless you, or someone local to you, is ready to put in all the time and energy it takes to put one of these shindigs on...it probably won't be. It's because of this that events like Frog Day bounce around each year: the event simply takes place in the town or city where the willing organizer lives. 

There is never a perfect time to hold one of these events. Someone will always have a conflicting event or busy time of life that conflicts with a frog/amphibian show. I believe Frog Day has traditionally been held on Memorial Day weekend: for some people that worked out great as they just tacked an extra day or two in front of a 3-day weekend to take off from work, or they just planned that weekend to be Frog Day each year. But for some people this just didn't work out. At some point, as the planner, you just have to put a date down and do it. We held Microcosm on Labor Day weekend because we wanted to put distance between that event and Frog Day (which was on Memorial Day) and not make it an issue of people choosing between the two: as events and planners, we wanted to support each other because we realize we're all in this hobby together and felt it important to promote a sense of community and support.

People have a tendency to want to reinvent the wheel rather than use the momentum of what's already going. Microcosm was a response to the indefinite cancellation of Northwest Frog Fest, and using that momentum and trying a different spin of bringing all "glass box" hobbies together--orchids, fish, geckos, carnivorous plants, frogs--and threading a theme of conservation throughout everything we did. The most common responses we received from the event was that people loved the emphasis on conservation at the event (one of our goals was to bring people together from different hobbies so that we could learn from one another), which they just hadn't seen at many of the other hobby shows they attend throughout the year. It was amazing to see the diversity of people there, from a grad student at UW specializing in Lycopodium spp. to a hobbyist who is helping regional zoos in the habitat enhancement and captive breeding of the endangered Western pond turtle...it represented the bridges that TWI is working to build and strengthen, bringing the private and public sectors together. But the planning of that event was more than a year in the process, and there were things we could have done to make it even better, but simply didn't have the time/energy (we all have day jobs). 

I think what happened at one point is that there was an oversaturation of events: Frog Day, NWFF, MWFF, NAAC, IAD. These events used to be how the community would largely interact (other than e-mail or telephone) and for the most part see or acquire new frogs. With the internet and more widespread availability of frogs, the role of some of these events has changed (people just order/ship frogs rather than showing up planning to get whetever they're going to add to their collection for that year) but I still think they are worthwhile and important for the continued sense of community many experience in the hobby.

I'm a big supporter of Frog Day and similar events, and since I've been director of TWI (just over 2 years now) we have supported each event as much as possible through publicity, attending, encouraging people to attend, etc. And I can also speak to how great it has been to be on the receiving end of these events' (and the hobbyists who attend them) generosity...which is something we always greatly appreciated, but by no means ever expect at each event. We have benefitted greatly from the fundraising events at Frog Day and NAAC, and just a few months ago were finally able to launch an amphibian conservation/research grant program with the funds we had accrued over the last couple years. This has been something I have wanted TWI to do for a while now, and it's fantastic to see it finally happen.

We have had inquiries as to when the next Microcosm will be...but to be honest, myself and the others who planned it are still pretty whiped out from the planning and execution of the event (I still have all the other directorial duties of TWI and the editing/layout duties of Leaf Litter to manage...on top of a day job or two). However, if there was a committee of people who could be dedicated to planning and putting it on and really understood the focus we would like the event to have, then it be fantastic to see it happen again...but it would most like be an every-other-year event. I'm not sure what the future of Frog Day is, whether they would like to see it continue every year or every other year, but it might be worth considering an alternative set of shows: Microcosm one year, Frog Day the next, Microcosm again, Frog Day again, etc. One would focus on the west coast and the other on the east coast. This way people would just expect and plan to participate in and travel to them each year (the westies head to the east coast every other year and vice-versa). However, this is just me thinking out loud...

Regardless, there is a LOT of factors and details that goes into putting these things on and determines when and where they are. We've got some good things going, and I would recommend supporting those things to add more energy to momentum that is already going, rather than fracturing and dividing all the energy and resources we have available. If you want something changed, offer to participate in the planning of the next event and help bring about some of those changes.

Anyway, I'm not sure which direction this conversation will go and I don't think I'll have much time to participate in it, but thought it was worth throwing out some of this information to the discussion for whatever it may be worth.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Well, you hit on a big issue that is a central issue to all of these events: they're one event in one location in the country. Why does a coordinated effort for an even have to be one event in one locations?

I mean, we coordinate frog meetings all the time all around the country so that froggers can get together and talk and sell/buy frogs. This represents a very large network of people that could do something big. What if we had folks coordinate a frog meeting one weekend all across the country and had that be "Amphibian Conservation Weekend" where we do a coordinated effort to improve an area locally. I personally could not make Microcosm because of the timing and distance, but I would have liked to. But I honestly see events like that as being somewhat removed from conservation. Sure they raise money for it, and that goes to a conservation organization to do the work, but the people participating aren't actually getting dirty and doing conservation work. That's one of my biggest concerns with much of the conservation movement: throw money at it and hope someone else does something.

So why not coordinate a country wide conservation event? It can be as simple as identifying an area nearby that is home to threatened/endangered frogs, and cleaning up the trash around the habitat and make it more viable habitat. I think something like that could have a very big impact and great success.


----------



## skylsdale

That is something we really wanted to do at Microcosm, JP, but just didn't get it pulled together (i.e. we wanted to actually work on some sort of project as an option to the field trip we led). Although there wasn't _direct_ conservation during the time at Microcosm, it is a byproduct and will allow for folks to get their hands dirt through Operation Frog Pond and whatnot...but I know what you mean about a disconnect(?). That is a difficulty in bridging a private hobby with actual on-the-ground conservation: it's a difficult thing to do, and the tendency is to just move toward one polarity or the other.

Logistically, rather than one team working on way concentrated/consolidated event, you are now looking at several teams working on numerous events...so you need that many more dependable and dedicated folks to make this thing work. In my experience, that is very difficult to do. Not impossible by any means, but difficult. I will think on this some more...


----------



## MonarchzMan

I would say keeping it simple is the way to go. Just say that we'll have an event this weekend, and if you were looking to do conservation projects, here are some examples. The more open it is, I would say the more successful it would be. If some folks decide that they want to do a meeting to talk about their frogs and raise a pot of money to be donated to TWI or whatever, so be it.


----------



## Vivexx

wow that pretty funny i do agree if anyones a slave its us lol thats pretty funny im sure these frogs have an easier life they dont have to look for food it shows up every day at 7 am and 7 pm lol right on time they dont have to search for a mate we provide them with a loving wife frog this is pretty dumb and could really be used against anyone with a pet your dogs and cats are now prisioners too...


----------



## skylsdale

Ah, I see what you're saying...I was thinking in a different direction.


----------



## Philsuma

Some great ideas in this thread....

My .02

Moving the annual "big frog event" around every year is paramount. That way more people can put energy into it - locally, like Ron said and more people can afford to attend if it's closer to them. An area attraction is a must as well. The Staten Island Zoo is a huge draw for me. I.A.D had the Aquarium to thank for some help there too. The behind the scenes tour was always fun.

Conservation and cleaning up a pond or stream is an Excellent idea and would generate 1000 times the effort in terms of PR - News coverage ect.

We should hold some sort of habitat clean-up or construction event to coincide with the Frog Event. I could totally see a lot of us wading into a pond or stream.

I think Lee H. had some members helping out with a Baltimore Area Wetlands clean-up a few years back.

Some thoughts....


----------



## Chris Miller

I'm taking over the reigns of American Frog Day as Chuck is stepping down after many, many years of organizing it.

Like Ron was saying back when these events first started, it was pretty much everyones only chance to talk in groups, put faces to names, see new frogs for the first time, etc. We need to evaluate the goals of these events, pull together all the best features and add on new facets that will advance the hobby. I think it would be great if all shows (especially weekend ones) focused on 4 key areas: education, service, fellowship and charity. 

Frog Day has become a traveling show if for no other reason than the difficulty in putting it on year after year in one place by the same people. This year its in NYC. AFD 2012 will be in Chicago. Going forward, I know that Chuck will host it again in San Jose and AZDR will do it in Arizona. We need people in other areas of the country to volunteer to host.

I'd like to have a national committee with a regional show committees set up as needed to run shows. How exactly this will end up looking I don't know. I feel it would be best if we could find a balance between existing hobby infrastructure and including new blood.


----------



## MonarchzMan

Back to the topic at hand, if folks haven't been following the conversation on the facebook group, you should. It's pretty interesting and enlightening towards the views that Kerry has.


----------



## Ed

The interesting thing is that chytrid could have emerged in North America and subsequently been transported globally via trade in bullfrogs which are used as a ranched food, and game species (in the states). 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

Ed said:


> The interesting thing is that chytrid could have emerged in North America and subsequently been transported globally via trade in bullfrogs which are used as a ranched food, and game species (in the states).


I was also wondering, if Dr. Kriger is so concerned about helping curb the spread of chytrid, why he hasn't attacked the frogs-as-food industry as vehemently as the frog hobby.


----------



## MonarchzMan

He has, but not very much. Personally, I would go to the real route of the problem: people. If he really wants to slow/stop the spread of chytrid, then he should seek regulation to make sure people or at least management agencies have disinfection stations. If you want to really have an effect on the spread of chytrid, that would be the way to go about it.

I really don't see the pet trade as being a significant threat. Frogs with chytrid in the trade are likely dead ends. They would at most pass the disease to frogs within a collection, but I really don't see the disease going from pets to wild populations. It may go the opposite way and that's unfortunate, but that fault lies with the person's poor biosecurity protocols with their collection.


----------



## Ed

This is scenario is probably a excellent method of dispersing chytrid as compared to the pet trade or even importation of frog's legs for the table. 

http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_2/Issue_1/Green_Dodd_2007.pdf 

Possible transport of infected tadpoles and water.. 

Ed


----------



## jkooiman

Ed said:


> This is scenario is probably a excellent method of dispersing chytrid as compared to the pet trade or even importation of frog's legs for the table.
> 
> http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_2/Issue_1/Green_Dodd_2007.pdf
> 
> Possible transport of infected tadpoles and water..
> 
> Ed


In my opinion, regulating the pond trade is tantamount to preventing the spread of chytrid in the US. Regulation of the pet trade pales in comparison. The idea of the spread of "novel" pathogens and chytrid via "pets" being released etc. etc. etc. is "novel" in and of itself. The fact is, catesbiana can be purchased online at countless vendors as "pond frogs" etc. I live in a western biome that has been devastated by bullfrogs, warm-water gamefish, etc. The fact that these animals (turtles included) are handily available to directly wreck havoc on our ecosystem makes me sick. Even worse is the knowledge that they indirectly play a massive role in decline/extinction via disease transmission.

I just spoke with an individual who bought some turtles for his pond, and who be-moaned the fact that they "disappeared" a day later. I'm a landscaper, and see this scenario over and over, year after year.

The "pet" trades "biohazard risk" pales in comparison. Period. JVK


----------



## Ed

jkooiman said:


> In my opinion, regulating the pond trade is tantamount to preventing the spread of chytrid in the US. Regulation of the pet trade pales in comparison. The idea of the spread of "novel" pathogens and chytrid via "pets" being released etc. etc. etc. is "novel" in and of itself. The fact is, catesbiana can be purchased online at countless vendors as "pond frogs" etc. I live in a western biome that has been devastated by bullfrogs, warm-water gamefish, etc. The fact that these animals (turtles included) are handily available to directly wreck havoc on our ecosystem makes me sick. Even worse is the knowledge that they indirectly play a massive role in decline/extinction via disease transmission.
> 
> I just spoke with an individual who bought some turtles for his pond, and who be-moaned the fact that they "disappeared" a day later. I'm a landscaper, and see this scenario over and over, year after year.
> 
> The "pet" trades "biohazard risk" pales in comparison. Period. JVK


You are correct overall the risk is pretty small but I don't think novel is the correct wording.. there has always been the spread of pathogens via pets; and there are a constant emergences of new pathogens that can sweep through a population whether it is captive or wild. In retrospect, it just probably hasn't been recognized as an issue until now.. (see for example the massive mortality in seals in the Caspian sea from canine distemper (see Mass Die-Off of Caspian Seals Caused by Canine Distemper Virus) or lions in Africa (see A canine distemper virus epidemic in Serengeti lio... [Nature. 1996] - PubMed result ) or even the emergence of canine parvovirus probably from Feline virus (FPV)). It is a risk and we shouldn't downplay too much... the real fact is that the captive amphibian hobby and industry can pretty much eliminate any risk of release of a pathogen by simply taking some simple precautions, specifically double bagging all solid waste and disposing of it in the proper waste stream and not composting it or dumping it outdoors and disinfecting waste water from the enclosures.

One of the issues with making it seem to insiginificant is that people tend to take the attitude well, it won't be due to something I've done.. 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

Ed said:


> ...the real fact is that the captive amphibian hobby and industry can pretty much eliminate any risk of release of a pathogen by simply taking some simple precautions, specifically double bagging all solid waste and disposing of it in the proper waste stream and not composting it or dumping it outdoors and disinfecting waste water from the enclosures.
> 
> One of the issues with making it seem to insiginificant is that people tend to take the attitude well, it won't be due to something I've done..


I think most people assume it could only spread if their frogs get loose and escape into the wild outside their homes...I doubt many realize it could be spread by dumping infected wastewater or substrate from an enclosure in an improper way.


----------

