# What's the big deal with Hybridizing?



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

I don't get it; the dart frog hobby is probably the only hobby that I've seen discouraging selective breeding captive bred specimens to produce hybridized forms; Why is this? No, US hobbyists are not going to one day save the species from extinction. They would never allow a reintroduction of the forms from the hobbyist level. 

I am not asking for explanations of the status-quo, I'm asking for rational explanation here. Sorry to rock the boat, but I am genuinely and objectively curious.

Regards,


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Use the search function. You will find many rational explanations.


----------



## wesley.robins (Jul 7, 2015)

I never really understood it either, however from what I've read from other peoples reasoning is basically because there is already so much variation in colors with different dart frogs species that it's completely unnecessary. It also has the potential to contaminate breeding lines if people decide to sell hybrid frogs without full disclosure to what I would assume would be a new person to the hobby. That's my take on it anyways.


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

Dane said:


> Use the search function. You will find many rational explanations.


No (Well, I have and was not satisfied). I really don't want to accept the status-quo. The primary logic seems to be that nature created animals with eye-popping colors for us, why do we need to create our own? While I agree the colors are absolutely vivid, I don't really wish to hybridize myself. I don't like to see hobbyists accept a philosophy of just because they are against hybridizing, everyone else and their uncle should be, too.


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

wesley.robins said:


> I never really understood it either, however from what I've read from other peoples reasoning is basically because there is already so much variation in colors with different dart frogs species that it's completely unnecessary. It also has the potential to contaminate breeding lines if people decide to sell hybrid frogs without full disclosure to what I would assume would be a new person to the hobby. That's my take on it anyways.


My logic here is that if people want to invest in their lines, they'll make damn well sure their pairs are pure bred. Other hobbies deal with this quite easily, why can't dart frog keepers do the same? Could it be the way the industry is set up? These animals are so easily kept, bred and offspring are resold? The way the dart frog economy and market operates could be the *true* reason why so many are against hybridization..


----------



## wesley.robins (Jul 7, 2015)

I may be wrong here, but am I correct in thinking that certain hybridization can leave the offspring sterile?


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

khaku2 said:


> My logic here is that if people want to invest in their lines, they'll make damn well sure their pairs are pure bred. Other hobbies deal with this quite easily, why can't dart frog keepers do the same? Could it be the way the industry is set up? These animals are so easily kept, bred and offspring are resold? The way the dart frog economy and market operates could be the *true* reason why so many are against hybridization..


Use the search function again. Pay more attention to the posts by Ed. Pay particular attention to the posts about increased pressures put on wild populations when the captive bred lines are seen as inferior, which is what hybridization does for the majority of people in the hobby. And very few people in this hobby actually make any money at it, so no, you're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these species are threatened in the wild - once they're gone, they're gone, and if the hobby genetics are polluted by hybridization they're gone forever. Many people find that a bigger tragedy than the lack of ability to create designer frogs. 

Your complaints seem rather too well thought out for someone who is honestly new to the hobby and without a personal interest in the economics of the hybridization.


----------



## JPP (Mar 25, 2015)

khaku2 said:


> I don't get it; the dart frog hobby is probably the only hobby that I've seen discouraging selective breeding captive bred specimens to produce hybridized forms; Why is this?


No, it isn't. The tarantula hobby is also against this as well, for example.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

khaku2 said:


> No (Well, I have and was not satisfied). I really don't want to accept the status-quo. The primary logic seems to be that nature created animals with eye-popping colors for us, why do we need to create our own? While I agree the colors are absolutely vivid, I don't really wish to hybridize myself. I don't like to see hobbyists accept a philosophy of just because they are against hybridizing, everyone else and their uncle should be, too.


Not trying to be rude sounding here, but if that was your take away, you didn't read enough. There are a multitude of reasons that will pop up in any thread concerning hybrids with "natural variation being sufficient" probably one of the least mentioned. Try harder!


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

khaku2 said:


> I don't like to see hobbyists accept a philosophy of just because they are against hybridizing, everyone else and their uncle should be, too.


It's about the frogs. Not the hobbyist.



khaku2 said:


> The way the dart frog economy and market operates could be the *true* reason why so many are against hybridization..


I don't see anyone getting rich off of frogs. I *have* seen people take a beating selling their collections though.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Let's flip the script and tell me why we need hybrids? If so many in the hobby are against it,why is there a need for hybridization? And don't give me the ole cause we can or their cool.


----------



## PFG (Oct 9, 2014)

Calivet said:


> ...
> 
> Your complaints seem rather too well thought out for someone who is honestly new to the hobby and without a personal interest in the economics of the hybridization.


My thoughts as well - that post could've been pulled straight out of another site...

Personally, I'd prefer to know that what I'm buying is exactly as stated, and not some odd genetic concoction that happens to look similar. Once those genes get mixed, there's no separating them. Just look at Diamond Pythons - one of my favorite snakes, yet I'll never own one because 99% of them are hybrids now.


----------



## LoganR (Oct 25, 2013)

It sounds like you might have made your decision beforehand. Maybe you haven't, but that is how the tone of your posts read.

That said, I would agree with what others have said. Read the various posts - valid reasons are given, whether or not you accept them is up to you. 

Hybridizing may not be ethically wrong to you, we each have our own ethical framework. But please accept that to many others, it is unethical, or at the very least, undesirable.

I agree with what you say about other hobbies. In fact, I also keep fancy guppies, and tracking genetics to keep healthy lines of fish gets complicated. An extreme example would be swallow-tail guppies, where males that express the trait can't even breed, because their reproductive organ is malformed - so you have to cross a female swallowtail back to a heterozygous male to create more (see swallowtail guppies).

There are people in the frog hobby who hybridize. They don't frequent the online discussion boards, or if they do, they don't talk about it (the same could be said for those that keep mixed tanks, those that have _Excidobates __mysteriosus _in their collections....). 

One large problem with hybridizing is that modern cultural practices (better supplements, diverse feeders, misting systems, knowledge) typically mean that many species of dart frogs will produce lots of offspring. I mean LOTS of offspring. The vast majority of people in the hobby will want nothing to do with those hybrid offspring. 

That leaves the hybridizers with limited options: pull their excess hybrid eggs, euthanize excess hybrid offspring, find a network of other hybridizers to share/trade, or become overrun with excess frogs. How do you feel about euthanizing your frogs or throwing away eggs? Do you have the space and finances to add a few dozen new tanks/year for the extra frogs?

Even those who do not hybridize face the problems of overproducing frogs. 
All you have to do is look at the prices of some of the more common frogs in the hobby.

So, regardless of what the overall feeling of the hobby is, choosing to hybridize is up to you, personally. But most of us, myself included, choose to maintain non-hybrid lines. Enjoy the dart frog hobby how you best see fit, but please don't introduce hybrid genetics into our collections.


----------



## jdooley195 (Oct 19, 2009)

khaku2 said:


> No, US hobbyists are not going to one day save the species from extinction.


If we continue to breed pure morphs, we are saving the species from extinction. They may disappear in the wild, but we'll have an exact sample of that morph/species breeding in captivity.

If we breed hybrids, the captive bred pool will be contaminated, and the pressure for pure morphs will increase the rate of species declination in the wild.


----------



## Bunsincunsin (Feb 11, 2008)

I would like to think that a fair majority of those who keep dart frogs are truly interested in the natural history of the species they choose to keep; it isn’t purely about the frogs themselves or simply keeping “pets”. It’s about the unique habitats where these species come from and how they fit into those habitats. For most, it’s about replicating a small piece of _nature_ that can be maintained within the confines of a glass enclosure; it isn’t too often that you see someone sharing a photo of a vivarium they’ve just finished, complete with a poster background taped to the back of the tank, plastic plants strewn across an AstroTurf floor and a large synthetic water dish at the center.

When you bring hybrids into the mix, all of that disappears. Sure, you might have a cool-looking frog, but it’s completely out of context. In my opinion, there’s no value left. It’s inherently synthetic and commercialized – something that goes against the very basis of this hobby (at least for me).

I don’t think you will see too many instances throughout the various hobbies within the pet trade where individuals will pull together to support projects that directly benefit related conservation efforts - efforts that recognize and respect the natural history of the species we keep - like you might see within the dart frog hobby itself. I’m not saying that one can’t, or won’t, support such conservation efforts as a buyer or producer of hybrids, but I do feel that hybridization promotes a certain detachedness from the natural world – a mindset that lacks much concern or respect for the species in question and their natural habitat; so much so, that I would think it would be rather unusual for such an individual to support that type of a cause. 


And so, I think the better question - as toostrange pointed out - is "why have hybrids?"


----------



## Tekman (Sep 6, 2015)

Although taken from a movie : "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should"

That pretty much sums it up for me. 

-Bob


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

Calivet said:


> Use the search function again. Pay more attention to the posts by Ed. Pay particular attention to the posts about increased pressures put on wild populations when the captive bred lines are seen as inferior, which is what hybridization does for the majority of people in the hobby. And very few people in this hobby actually make any money at it, so no, you're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these species are threatened in the wild - once they're gone, they're gone, and if the hobby genetics are polluted by hybridization they're gone forever. Many people find that a bigger tragedy than the lack of ability to create designer frogs.
> 
> Your complaints seem rather too well thought out for someone who is honestly new to the hobby and without a personal interest in the economics of the hybridization.


Thank you for the compliment. I can assure you that I am neither interested in the economics of profiting from hybrids and am, in fact a new hobbyist.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Realistically, I have seen the hybrids the certain people I will not name have for sale. I personally think they are no better looking or any "cooler" than pure stock. So again I say why? I want someone to convince me that it's justified. And this excuse my language dumb shit about the frog nazies trying to corner the market. That ship won't sail with me. If what you want to do or are doing is so ground breaking and so much better than what the rest of the hobby is doing it should stand on its own merit. Even if we don't agree with it. I personally don't care what you do with your frogs but why do you need the rest of us to condone what your doing? I really haven't seen a good argument for hybrids that hasn't been disproved.


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

Bunsincunsin said:


> I would like to think that a fair majority of those who keep dart frogs are truly interested in the natural history of the species they choose to keep; it isn’t purely about the frogs themselves or simply keeping “pets”. It’s about the unique habitats where these species come from and how they fit into those habitats. For most, it’s about replicating a small piece of _nature_ that can be maintained within the confines of a glass enclosure; it isn’t too often that you see someone sharing a photo of a vivarium they’ve just finished, complete with a poster background taped to the back of the tank, plastic plants strewn across an AstroTurf floor and a large synthetic water dish at the center.
> 
> When you bring hybrids into the mix, all of that disappears. Sure, you might have a cool-looking frog, but it’s completely out of context. In my opinion, there’s no value left. It’s inherently synthetic and commercialized – something that goes against the very basis of this hobby (at least for me).
> 
> ...


And here, I think we have the true answer against hybridization. Would you say you see hybridizers as willfully ignorant individuals of the environment and preservation of dart frog ecosystems?

The general feeling I get is that you're a hobbyist that primarily uses dart frogs as a means of expressing concern over the current state of rainforests; intention to preserve, and acknowledge their fragility and biodiversity? 

If this is true, this is quite noble of you. I agree that dart frogs likely aren't as easily kept in a clown-barf-decorated tanks complete with plastic streamers as plants as fish are. They are very sensitive animals. 

If I'm incorrect, please let me know. I come from a marketing background and am always wanting to understand what makes people tick. And I will be very clear, I have no ulterior motive, whatsoever. I like to investigate these subjects.

Thank you,


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

Bunsincunsin said:


> I would like to think that a fair majority of those who keep dart frogs are truly interested in the natural history of the species they choose to keep; it isn’t purely about the frogs themselves or simply keeping “pets”. It’s about the unique habitats where these species come from and how they fit into those habitats. For most, it’s about replicating a small piece of _nature_ that can be maintained within the confines of a glass enclosure; it isn’t too often that you see someone sharing a photo of a vivarium they’ve just finished, complete with a poster background taped to the back of the tank, plastic plants strewn across an AstroTurf floor and a large synthetic water dish at the center.
> 
> When you bring hybrids into the mix, all of that disappears. Sure, you might have a cool-looking frog, but it’s completely out of context. In my opinion, there’s no value left. It’s inherently synthetic and commercialized – something that goes against the very basis of this hobby (at least for me).
> 
> ...


Building on what Shaun said, I think the founders of this hobby came largely from scientific backgrounds, many working for zoological institutions or doing real research on these animals or the ecosystems they inhabit. They would have had no interest in muddying the hobby with unnatural hybrids because they were replicating what they saw in the field in captivity. These ideals were passed on to the next wave of hobbyists and thankfully, that tradition largely remains. Remember, this hobby started off tiny and has only recently gotten fairly large with the onset of the internet and social media.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Bunscunsin put it best.

In truth, darts can certainly be kept in artificial looking enclosures-they do ok in fairly artificial rubbermaid and quarantine tanks. You could do a lego waterfall with dragons and I'm sure the frogs would happily breed in that. But to dart frog hobbyists the animals are much more than pretty playthings or "investments". The current state of much of the rest of the herp hobby makes my stomach turn a little bit. You cannot really call much of what happens at herp shows educational or causing people to have a deeper connection with nature. The natural history of a albino flame blasted eagle eyed whatever is certainly an afterthought.

I hope the dart frog hobby is different.


----------



## Atrox1214 (Sep 28, 2014)

The thing that I have a hard time understanding about the dart frog hobby is the overwhelming consensus that there is only one right way to do something. In the snake hobby, there are many people who are anti-hybrid, as well as many who are pro hybrid. The difference I see between the dart frog hobby and the snake hobby is that in the snake hobby, pro-hybrid people aren't villainized and shunned, they are simply part of a different market, and anti-hybrid people simply don't purchase hybrids. Pretty simple huh? I think the take away for the dart frog hobbyists should be that there are no concerns in the snake hobby of blood lines being contaminated because, with no stigma attached to hybrids, people advertise them honestly (eg. 50% corn/50% bull snake), and leave it up to to consumer if they want to buy a hybrid, or keep looking for a pure line snake. The reason dart frog hybrids might contaminate pure blood lines is that people are afraid to sell them honestly, so they try to pass them off as something they're not. However, if the hobby allowed for a separate hybrid market, people could simply sell frogs as 50% Matecho/50% Patricia Tinctorius, and people could simply buy them or pass them by. As for the question of "why produce hybrids", because some people like them, and should be allowed to do it responsibly. Realistically, none of the frogs in the private trade have any conservation value, none whatsoever. If people want to keep the bloodlines pure for their own satisfaction, that's great, but hybrids are going to happen, and you can either slap a stigma on them and not know where they end up, or create a market for them and keep everything transparent.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

How many snakes that are bred in the hobby are critically endangered in the wild? So many of the darts we work with are, and more are becoming endangered every day thanks to chytrid, de-forestation, and a whole host of other reasons. There's a reason we want our frogs to resemble nature as much as possible. You're not here to learn from what it sounds like, you're here to lecture on why we should have hybrids, with absolutely no willingness to admit that this is NOT the snake hobby (thank god for that), or the gecko hobby. Most of us stay in this hobby precisely because it ISN'T those hobbies. I keep snakes, and a multitude of other ectotherms, but darts are my passion, and my favorite. I know entirely too many hillbilly snake breeders to want the dart frog hobby to turn into that giant mess. And who says hybrids are going to happen? We, as a community, owe it to ourselves to *educate* new hobbyists on why there is in fact, absolutely harm in breeding hybrids, and we have done a pretty good job on keeping most of them out of the hobby at large. Why are you pushing them so much? Also, there is no such thing as a "responsible" hybrid in this hobby.


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

TarantulaGuy said:


> How many snakes that are bred in the hobby are critically endangered in the wild? So many of the darts we work with are, and more are becoming endangered every day thanks to chytrid, de-forestation, and a whole host of other reasons. There's a reason we want our frogs to resemble nature as much as possible. You're not here to learn from what it sounds like, you're here to lecture on why we should have hybrids, with absolutely no willingness to admit that this is NOT the snake hobby (thank god for that), or the gecko hobby. Most of us stay in this hobby precisely because it ISN'T those hobbies. I keep snakes, and a multitude of other ectotherms, but darts are my passion, and my favorite. I know entirely too many hillbilly snake breeders to want the dart frog hobby to turn into that giant mess. And who says hybrids are going to happen? We, as a community, owe it to ourselves to *educate* new hobbyists on why there is in fact, absolutely harm in breeding hybrids, and we have done a pretty good job on keeping most of them out of the hobby at large. Why are you pushing them so much? Also, there is no such thing as a "responsible" hybrid in this hobby.


I'm sorry, but the US market is not acting as a vault for the preservation of these animals. My logic here is that new hobbyists must be indoctrinated on how to keep these animals. When positioned in the manner you have, I see the argument against hybridizing is uncogent and ultimately self serving to one's ego.

I'm sorry, your frogs will never be reintroduced back into the wild. If anything, acknowledging that hybrids are here and exist will bring hobbyists out of the shadows and make it okay to label these animals properly. Allowing this to occur would help split the hobby into what it actually is; Purebred animals and hybridized.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

khaku2 said:


> I'm sorry, but the US market is not acting as a vault for the preservation of these animals. My logic here is that new hobbyists must be indoctrinated on how to keep these animals. When positioned in the manner you have, I see the argument against hybridizing is uncogent and ultimately self serving to one's ego.
> 
> I'm sorry, your frogs will never be reintroduced back into the wild. If anything, acknowledging that hybrids are here and exist will bring hobbyists out of the shadows and make it okay to label these animals properly. Allowing this to occur would help split the hobby into what it actually is; Purebred animals and hybridized.


That is the biggest crock of pseudo psycho babble I've read in quite some time. Seriously, you're brand new to this hobby, and yet you know so much more than people who have been in this for decades? Please enlighten me as to where this newfound expertise comes from.


----------



## Tekman (Sep 6, 2015)

You could also look at it in a sense from a dog breeding aspect. You have pure breeds that may have some sort of paperwork that show bloodlines etc or you either don't care about that or the dog may just be a mutt. If you do care about the paperwork and the registration then you will almost certainly pay more for that animal. One of the biggest is the AKC. So that is something that could be created within the reptile community as well. 

I hereby create the WRA (World Reptile Association) in order to promote the conservation, care and breeding of captive bred reptiles from around the World. Only breeders who are committed to providing pure bred reptiles along with adhering to the standards of care will be accepted. 

All reptiles must be registered with current information ,breeder, bloodlines etc, which will be easily retrievable online by the purchaser of each reptile. A certificate of assurance can be printed online or provided by the breeder at time of purchase. 

How's that for a solution? This basically allows the individual to decide whether they want the mutt or the purebred. 

_Bob


----------



## Tekman (Sep 6, 2015)

Actually should be WRAA World Reptile & Amphibian Association. 

-Bob


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Atrox: I would disagree. The snake hobby has lost several subspecies and species to hybridization. You'd be hard pressed to find a verifiably pure milksnake of many of the available subspecies. 

In the snake hobby their are also keepers who strictly breed by locality. This is great-and it is especially nice for species in which the taxonomy is uncertain. It also helps people connect a place to the animals. The problem with localities is the numbers of animals involved are tiny. It is tough to pair locality animals-and people often lose these lines and then have to go re-collect them. Many animals circulate without labels and people will happily misrepresent these as locality animals to sell them to unsuspecting buyers(despite the fact that people will happily buy generics). You are kidding yourself if you think people don't do that in the snake hobby with hybrids-it is harder though when the hybrids are incredibly artificial looking...and then they get passed around as mystery unknowns. And the snake hobby is much bigger than the frog hobby. 

We cannot control what other hobbyists do. We can promote a common ground and stance for the benefit of the hobby in general.

People who want to create hybrids are often motivated by monetary reasons. We can remind people that no money is made in creating hybrids. I mean look at albino dart frogs-people find them interesting but you thankfully don't see the kind of gold rush mentality that you get with albino snakes. People are overwhelmingly interested in what frogs look like in nature.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

I'm still only hearing "because I want to". Why do you need permission? That's the thing I don't understand. I don't think the hobby as a whole will ever accept it.


----------



## Atrox1214 (Sep 28, 2014)

TarantulaGuy said:


> That is the biggest crock of pseudo psycho babble I've read in quite some time. Seriously, you're brand new to this hobby, and yet you know so much more than people who have been in this for decades? Please enlighten me as to where this newfound expertise comes from.


So, are you saying that frogs in the private hobby DO have conservation value and are important to the survival of the species in the wild? I said that if people want to keep bloodlines pure for their own satisfaction, that's great and I have no problem with it. I have two bloodlines of corn snakes that I keep that do not carry genes for any color morphs because I like producing corns that don't carry any weird "domestic genes" and appear as they should. But guess what, anything "natural" about those corn snakes, as well as the VAST majority of dart frogs in the hobby is long gone. They have still been selectively bred for color, size, ease of rearing babies, boldness etc. There simply isn't much natural about our hobby. Also, I'm not "pushing" for hybrids, I'm simply pointing out a valid way to handle their existence and prevent any mixups.

Finally, at no point did I attack the dart frog hobby and resort to childish name calling, a courtesy that was not given to me. People (me) might take you a little more seriously if you drop the elitist attitude and not refer to other hobbyists as "hillbillies" and refer to the snake hobby a "giant mess". But that's just a personal beef.


----------



## Basketbreaker (Sep 30, 2005)

So, whats "worse". Line breeding, or hybridizing?

Mike


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Basketbreaker said:


> So, whats "worse". Line breeding, or hybridizing?
> 
> Mike


According the literature on sustaining captive populations hybrids. There is abundant evidence that hybridization is the route of last resort when the population is going to go extinct if nothing is done. 

This a good summary of the topic 

Edmands, Suzanne. "Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management." Molecular Ecology 16.3 (2007): 463-475. and can currently be read at 
http://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/wfb224/edmands.pdf 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Atrox1214 (Sep 28, 2014)

Basketbreaker said:


> So, whats "worse". Line breeding, or hybridizing?
> 
> Mike


In my opinion, if you look at it from the standpoint of maintaining a viable captive population of a certain species or locale, it's equal. A hybrid becomes it's whole own entity that is of no value to the population of either parent species. Line breeding destroys the gene pool by creating and passing on inferior genes stemming from a limited gene pool. Bloodlines need to be outcrossed to promote genetic diversity and ensure healthy frogs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Atrox1214 said:


> So, are you saying that frogs in the private hobby DO have conservation value and are important to the survival of the species in the wild? I said that if people want to keep bloodlines pure for their own satisfaction, that's great and I have no problem with it. I have two bloodlines of corn snakes that I keep that do not carry genes for any color morphs because I like producing corns that don't carry any weird "domestic genes" and appear as they should. But guess what, anything "natural" about those corn snakes, as well as the VAST majority of dart frogs in the hobby is long gone. They have still been selectively bred for color, size, ease of rearing babies, boldness etc. There simply isn't much natural about our hobby. Also, I'm not "pushing" for hybrids, I'm simply pointing out a valid way to handle their existence and prevent any mixups.


Actually there is value in them being in captivity as an unadulturated state. A classic example of this is the Anthropogenic Allee effect on wildlife. See Courchamp, Franck, et al. "Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect." (2006): e415. 
Accessed from http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040415

As an animal becomes more difficult to source, the price of the animal rises incurring a greater demand to remove more of those animals from the wild. 
We also see this to some extent with the popularity cycles in the hobby. A species or population (aka morph) becomes common and people stop keeping it and then several years later as they become less common, they are worth enough money that people start to want them and to breed them. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Atrox1214 said:


> In my opinion, if you look at it from the standpoint of maintaining a viable captive population of a certain species or locale, it's equal. A hybrid becomes it's whole own entity that is of no value to the population of either parent species. Line breeding destroys the gene pool by creating and passing on inferior genes stemming from a limited gene pool. Bloodlines need to be outcrossed to promote genetic diversity and ensure healthy frogs.


Actually its not equal and it carries its own severe risks. Outbreeding isn't ideal either, there is risk that the outcrossing will bring unfavorable gene complexes into play which can also affect survivial. The following paper cites an increase in malformation in offspring due to an outcross between population of the same species. 

see for example Sagvik, Jörgen, Tobias Uller, and Mats Olsson. "Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria." Conservation Genetics 6.2 (2005): 205-211.

http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files\6063\articles\5372\LV68M29432114864.pdf 

If people cross lines frequently enough to prevent large amounts of gene loss then it should be fine. People should be aware that suddenly outcrossing a highly inbred line can provide risk. It should also be noted that outbreeding depression is a risk that may not be apparent until the 3-4 generation. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Atrox1214 (Sep 28, 2014)

Ed said:


> Actually its not equal and it carries its own severe risks. Outbreeding isn't ideal either, there is risk that the outcrossing will bring unfavorable gene complexes into play which can also affect survivial. The following paper cites an increase in malformation in offspring due to an outcross between population of the same species.
> 
> see for example Sagvik, Jörgen, Tobias Uller, and Mats Olsson. "Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria." Conservation Genetics 6.2 (2005): 205-211.
> 
> ...


Obviously there is always the risk of any animal carrying inferior genes, I was speaking more to the habit this hobby (herps in general, not just dart frogs) seems to have of purchasing pairs or groups from the same person with the intent of breeding them in the future. I always make efforts to purchase animals from different breeders to maintain diversity.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Atrox1214 said:


> Obviously there is always the risk of any animal carrying inferior genes, I was speaking more to the habit this hobby (herps in general, not just dart frogs) seems to have of purchasing pairs or groups from the same person with the intent of breeding them in the future. I always make efforts to purchase animals from different breeders to maintain diversity.


Doesn't change the fact that outbreeding isn't always the correct choice. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

wesley.robins said:


> I may be wrong here, but am I correct in thinking that certain hybridization can leave the offspring sterile?


This a very outdated idea and doesn't hold true for a wide number of crosses and taxa. As an example the edible frog in Europe is a hybrid frog that is fertile see for example (and normally I won't recommend Wikipedia but this is pretty okay) Pelophylax kl. esculentus 

Or you can check out the ambystoma hybrid complexes. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Basketbreaker (Sep 30, 2005)

Atrox1214 said:


> Obviously there is always the risk of any animal carrying inferior genes, I was speaking more to the habit this hobby (herps in general, not just dart frogs) seems to have of purchasing pairs or groups from the same person with the intent of breeding them in the future. I always make efforts to purchase animals from different breeders to maintain diversity.


Couldn't you argue that is is a form of hybridization? Also, if all the tincs are considered morphs of one another (i.e. D. tinc azureus) is crossing them considered hybridization? They are the same species are they not? 

Mike


----------



## Handfishinghillbilly (Apr 4, 2013)

When they go extinct in the wild maybe you'll finally get it....people amaze me


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

TarantulaGuy said:


> That is the biggest crock of pseudo psycho babble I've read in quite some time. Seriously, you're brand new to this hobby, and yet you know so much more than people who have been in this for decades? Please enlighten me as to where this newfound expertise comes from.


Whatever you must say. My intent with this thread was to get people thinking about this subject.


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Never under estimate the depths of human ignorance.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

khaku2 said:


> I'm sorry, but the US market is not acting as a vault for the preservation of these animals. My logic here is that new hobbyists must be indoctrinated on how to keep these animals. When positioned in the manner you have, I see the argument against hybridizing is uncogent and ultimately self serving to one's ego.
> 
> I'm sorry, your frogs will never be reintroduced back into the wild. If anything, acknowledging that hybrids are here and exist will bring hobbyists out of the shadows and make it okay to label these animals properly. Allowing this to occur would help split the hobby into what it actually is; Purebred animals and hybridized.


Have you found an argument FOR hybridizing that is cogent and/or not self serving to ones ego? The only rationales I've seen are "because I want to/because I can" or being an attempt to make money by filling a (non-existent) niche for designer animals, which aren't exactly cogent, and are absolutely self-serving. Do you have another?


----------



## morphman (May 20, 2011)

khaku2 said:


> And here, I think we have the true answer against hybridization. Would you say you see hybridizers as willfully ignorant individuals of the environment and preservation of dart frog ecosystems?
> 
> The general feeling I get is that you're a hobbyist that primarily uses dart frogs as a means of expressing concern over the current state of rainforests; intention to preserve, and acknowledge their fragility and biodiversity?
> 
> ...


 If that is your only motive here then the search function that was suggested at the beginning should have brought up enough material for you to earn a Doctorate Degree on this subject.

Seriously folks


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Atrox1214 said:


> So, are you saying that frogs in the private hobby DO have conservation value and are important to the survival of the species in the wild? I said that if people want to keep bloodlines pure for their own satisfaction, that's great and I have no problem with it. I have two bloodlines of corn snakes that I keep that do not carry genes for any color morphs because I like producing corns that don't carry any weird "domestic genes" and appear as they should. But guess what, anything "natural" about those corn snakes, as well as the VAST majority of dart frogs in the hobby is long gone. They have still been selectively bred for color, size, ease of rearing babies, boldness etc. There simply isn't much natural about our hobby. Also, I'm not "pushing" for hybrids, I'm simply pointing out a valid way to handle their existence and prevent any mixups.
> 
> Finally, at no point did I attack the dart frog hobby and resort to childish name calling, a courtesy that was not given to me. People (me) might take you a little more seriously if you drop the elitist attitude and not refer to other hobbyists as "hillbillies" and refer to the snake hobby a "giant mess". But that's just a personal beef.



I'm a zookeeper, of course captive animals have conservation value. That's my whole career. And yes, they ARE important to the animals' survival in the wild, to say otherwise is naive. I can point you to couple projects where captive animals are being re-introduced into the wild in order to bolster wild populations, and that's just right off the top of my head. Never mind the sheer educational value of captive animals and their ability to make clear the plight of the species in the wild; take _Atelopus zeteki_ for instance. 

And I would say you are quite clearly pushing for hybrids. You won't even consider the other side, you're certainly not neutrally approaching the subject at least. We all think about this subject all the time, it's basically the "hottest" topic right now, and just because you're new to the hobby is no reason to think it hasn't been brought up before. And to be entirely honest, I really don't care if you take me seriously. I haven't called you names, nor did I lump you in with "hillbilly" snake keepers, even though there are plenty. I know many of them personally. And if you don't recognize that captive snake genetics especially in commonly kept species is a crap-show, then that's not my fault. It's a mess over there, and I'll be damned if I want to see that happen to darts. There are so many inbred snakes out there with huge genetic faults that it sickens me. Darts are not that way, and hopefully, with careful management, and not a gun's blazing approach, it will stay that way.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

khaku2 said:


> Whatever you must say. My intent with this thread was to get people thinking about this subject.


Lately, given how often new members seem to be immediately posting regarding hybridization, I'm sure most of us are thinking of it more frequently than we would like.


----------



## Basketbreaker (Sep 30, 2005)

TarantulaGuy said:


> I'm a zookeeper, of course captive animals have conservation value. That's my whole career. And yes, they ARE important to the animals' survival in the wild, to say otherwise is naive. I can point you to couple projects where captive animals are being re-introduced into the wild in order to bolster wild populations, and that's just right off the top of my head. Never mind the sheer educational value of captive animals and their ability to make clear the plight of the species in the wild; take _Atelopus zeteki_ for instance.


Do you think this applies to hobbies also? Not just established institutions?

Mike


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

LoganR said:


> It sounds like you might have made your decision beforehand. Maybe you haven't, but that is how the tone of your posts read.
> 
> That said, I would agree with what others have said. Read the various posts - valid reasons are given, whether or not you accept them is up to you.
> 
> ...


So true. There are already plenty of peaks and valleys in dart sales/demand.


----------



## herbivrus (May 28, 2014)

I'll start by saying that introducing oneself as a supposed newbie who is admittedly unfamiliar both with the hobby AND with the reasons that the very experienced hobbyists who've protected and grown the hobby over the years are opposed to hybridization, and then basically dismissing those hobbyists and their experience and opinions with "I don't want to accept the status quo", is about as disrespectful a way of approaching a hobby, and of asking for information, as is possible. It's as if I dropped into a surgical suite and said, "So, I am just a first-year medical student, and I don't know why y'all are doing things in this particular way, but I think you're just serving your egos and preconceptions, and I don't want to accept the status quo, so I think my opinion on what should be considered good surgical practice is really what I'll be running with going forward."

That said: I've thought about this subject way more often than I'd like lately, in part because I spent the weekend helping a friend vend at a local reptile/amphibian convention. The most frequently asked question I got was, of course, "So, these are deadly poisonous, right?" (followed by what was, I hope, my patient answer about how poison frogs attain their toxicity and how CB frogs are thus not dangerously toxic, etc.). The second-most-frequent question has to be, "So I can mix all these colors/types up in one tank, right?"

That one does need a more nuanced answer, because it's not just the reciting of plain facts and data as answering the first question is. (And I think it's made all the more difficult to answer persuasively in that environment, when one is surrounded by hundreds of crazy ball python morphs and hybrids between kingsnakes and corn snakes ("Jungle Corns") and various other hybrids or morphs that barely resemble their wild counterparts.) My tack is to start with, "Experienced frog-keepers in general discourage that practice...", and then to go into the many reasons for this: biological, environmental, cultural, etc. (depending on the apparent interest/seriousness of the questioner, of course). It leads to longer and more complex discussions, but most people seem to conclude that the reasoning behind discouraging hybridization is in fact cogent and, when it introduces new concepts to them, even interesting. There are always a few folks, though, who are determined to keep asking that question (or other ones) convinced that they will at some point get a different answer. They want what they want, and they don't want to hear a cogent reply that runs counter to their desires. I fear that's the trap the OP has fallen into, and is belied with their "I don't want to accept the status quo" concept. 

"I don't want to accept the status quo." I absolutely believe you, new and inexperienced hobbyist, when you say that. I just beseech you to actually pay attention to the data driven replies -- absolutely cogent, by the way -- by folks like Ed, and the words from experienced hobbyists who've held this passion for years. Make no mistake, there have been revolutions in the hobby that have seen huge improvements in frog husbandry and reproduction, and shifts that have led to a larger concern, for instance, with issues of conservation and habitat protection and the economics of bio-commerce. It is not the "protect the status-quo at all costs" hobby that you seem to take it as. But those revolutions are borne out of a respect for the data, the experience of others, and most of all, for the animals we are so passionate about. 

One new hobbyist might approach experienced, respected hobbyists with a question like, "What's the big deal with hybridizing? I don't want to accept the status quo . . ." and then fish for rationalizations that support their already-adopted stance, while claiming that the experienced hobbyists are only acting out of a love of the status-quo and not from, well, _experience_ (and published data, and a passion for the hobby, and a long-held love for frogs). Another new hobbyist might really read carefully both the posts of experienced hobbyists and the published data to which those hobbyists refer, and even try to find some local froggers or groups to discuss the current best practices that the hobby has developed, and then, if they still find themselves in disagreement, state the basis for their disagreement along with support for their argument that can be objectively weighed and discussed. They may even be right! But in general it is better to first understand a culture or hobby or vocation and why its members believe as they do before criticizing one of its main tenets as primarily irrational.

That the OP thinks that the primary arguments against hybridization boil down to hobbyists thinking they can help re-establish species by reintroduction from pure captive bloodlines, and/or that there are plenty of beautiful pure frogs out there so there is no need to hybridize, means they haven't actually done the work with the search function and read the discussions, or they have not bothered to work to understand the discussions and prefer to set out on their own path without regard to experience or data. If you are really interested in understanding the experienced hobbyists' stance on this subject, khaku2, I encourage you to go back and really read the past discussions on hybridization -- including the referred scientific publications and other linked material -- and if you still have questions, to formulate them in a way that indicates you've really done this (by showing that you understand that the objections to hybridization don't boil down to the two simplistic stances you claim they do) and to formulate a coherent counterclaim, backed as firmly by data and experience and passion. If, instead, you are just out to do things as you see fit, then I wish you the best, and hope that your frogs or the hobby don't suffer for it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Basketbreaker said:


> Do you think this applies to hobbies also? Not just established institutions?
> 
> Mike


Yes, having animals like this as pets tend to increase biophilia among pet owners which in turn increases support for conservation of animals in the wild. 

Without sufficient familiarity with the animal there is a major reduction in the willingness to support conservation. That is in no small part why the "megacharismatic vertebrates" are the ones that receive the greatest attention from the public and are often used as umbrella species to protect ecosystems. 

See Martín-López, Berta, Carlos Montes, and Javier Benayas. "The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation." Biological conservation 139.1 (2007): 67-82.

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

khaku2 said:


> Whatever you must say. My intent with this thread was to get people thinking about this subject.


This seems an odd characterization as to your position. If you reviewed the discussions on this forum, you would see that there has been a wide variety of information including but not limited to that of research papers in forming the status in the hobby.

I think Calivet has an important question for you to answer. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> Lately, given how often new members seem to be immediately posting regarding hybridization, I'm sure most of us are thinking of it more frequently than we would like.


Which is actually a departure from the more common question of housing multiple varieties in the same enclosure. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Basketbreaker said:


> Couldn't you argue that is is a form of hybridization? Also, if all the tincs are considered morphs of one another (i.e. D. tinc azureus) is crossing them considered hybridization? They are the same species are they not?
> 
> Mike


Crossing animals from different populations is hybridization. The fact that there has been locality driven adaptation is evident in the variation in patterns at the different location. In reality the hobby uses "morph" in place of population as unlike many reptiles and some amphibians these are stable patterns that are often very restricted geographically and have not had contact with one another for 10,000 years (in the case of tinctorius). This is not the same as leopard geckos, fat tail geckos, boas, ball pythons and so forth. In those others that have "morphs', the variation in pattern is the result of isolating a pigment or physical mutation and then fixing it as a stable trait. There are rarely any adaptive genes linked to this process (and most of them that are linked are tend to be significantly detrimental or lethal like some of the supermorphs of boas or enigma genes in leopard geckos). 

As to the risks this was addressed above. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

What? Another thread on this topic?
It seemed strange to me, perhaps too good to be true: a month without anyone who starts for the umpteenth time a thread on hybridization - and, coincidentally, a noob! 
And now THIS!
Patience!


----------



## Woodswalker (Dec 26, 2014)

Anyone who thinks anti-hybridization stances are due simply to aesthetic preferences or acting as safe harbors for endangered species is missing many, many arguments.

For instance, to hybridize, that entails mixing together frogs of either different species, morphs, or locales. Mixing is strongly discouraged for reasons other than the risk of hybrids. Among those are the risk for novel pathogens being introduced to frogs who are not adapted to handle them from frogs who have a higher tolerance for them. Another is the risk of death or injury due to conflict and aggression within non-homogeneous tanks. These risks are both present even during a temporary co-housing of two or more species, morphs or locales. 

That's not even to mention the fact that many hybrids have been found to have reduced fertility, some even being sterile. 

I am fairly new to this hobby myself, but these were among the first things I learned when going through my research, and it didn't take a lot of digging to find this information. Claiming that only arguments for aesthetic purity and upholding the status quo without questioning its soundness are the only reasons one can find for shunning hybridization sounds suspect to me. There is no shortage of threads asking this very same question, with every one having the same results.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed: any studies on keeping of exotics and biophilia? I know many reptile shows claim educational value. I doubt morph breeding has much effect on biophilia.

Are their any institutions studying the effectiveness of animal ambassadors and biophilia and its broader implications? I wouldn't mind spending a couple years working on that research


----------



## snake5891 (Dec 10, 2009)

I went to a reptile show last Sunday.

I saw a table with azureus hybrids, clearly marked as hybrids.

I won't even consider buying any frogs from that hobbyist, not the hybrids and not any others.


----------



## srrrio (May 12, 2007)

snake5891 said:


> I saw a table with azureus hybrids, clearly marked as hybrids.


Azureus should really be the the poster child for why "hybridizing is a big deal" Unless they are legally imported someday, we have what we have of this morph. Everytime one is bred with other morph.. a little bit of this unique tinctorius morph disappears. 

I really don't mind when there threads come up anymore. Really where are people going to get exposed to the non mixing idea? Certainly not a most shows and pet stores, and Facebook seems to be a hot mess of good advice mixed with horrible. 

On of our local shops recently had a bunch of reported hybrids that some zoo unloaded. Purchasing darts these days .. you gonna have to be part detective if you want a true locale/ morph.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

snake5891 said:


> I went to a reptile show last Sunday.
> 
> I saw a table with azureus hybrids, clearly marked as hybrids.
> 
> I won't even consider buying any frogs from that hobbyist, not the hybrids and not any others.


Who was it?


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

khaku2 said:


> My intent with this thread was to get people thinking about this subject.


TL - I wanted to cause drama.

From every negative we can find something positive though, and in this case it has provided an opportunity, yet again , to lay out the clear cut case against hybrids.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed: any studies on keeping of exotics and biophilia? I know many reptile shows claim educational value. I doubt morph breeding has much effect on biophilia.
> 
> Are their any institutions studying the effectiveness of animal ambassadors and biophilia and its broader implications? I wouldn't mind spending a couple years working on that research


I haven't seen any studies that compare the difference between the normal pattern as compared to other patterns. Instead the sheer fact that the people have access to the animals is important. See for example 

Chomey, Ariel. OUR UNCONSCIOUS BRIDGE TO NATURE: THE ROLE OF PETS AND ANIMAL VIEWS IN A PERSON’S ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. Diss. Florida Gulf Coast University, 2014. 

Yes there are a lot of studies on the effectiveness of animal ambassadors of zoos. The amount of success is often dependent on the ability of the institution to follow up to acquire the support needed for the specific program or programs. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

khaku2 said:


> Whatever you must say. My intent with this thread was to get people thinking about this subject.


I just skimmed a lot of the replies but I'll weigh in with some of my top 3 "pragmatic" reasons not to hybridize (That I can think of right off hand)...

1. We have enough confusion already. Origin info has been lost or never existed for some frogs currently in hobby. Since many hybrids can look close if not identical to their parent animals, or other species/mophs/localities entirely, it seems unlikely that we could ever avoid the danger of more confusion, especially when dealing with less experienced people, and those that want designer animals and don't care about the status quo. 

Why would they go out of their way to protect it? ...Why would I trust them to do so? Judging from how few wild type corn snakes and leopard geckos I see offered that aren't het x albino x whatever divided by bla bla, I don't think other hobbies have as good a handle on keeping things separate as some would like us to believe. 

2. It may be the "status quo", but I believe poo pooing the desires of the core hobby community to satisfy a selfish need for designer animals, *and the risk that need imposes on us without our consent* and our captive bred populations does constitute a pragmatic reason not to encourage or accept hybridization/designer animals. 

3. Many of the animals we work with come from limited founder stock. Removing a % of those animals to use in hybrid/designer animal attempts lessens the overall *true* genetic diversity available to us to use to perpetuate that population into the future. I don't think the idea that animals used for such purposes are then "tainted" is going to go away soon, nor do I think it should. 

As others have stated; the best arguments for it seem to be "We want it, and we don't care or don't think it is any risk to you... regardless of all the logically consistent, pragmatic, and just simple common sense arguments you throw in our face" ...and "But aw man come on.. we could make so much money doing it!!!" 

There is a lot more that I'm sure others have covered in this thread and in other threads. There are so many reasons not to, and so few to; that I really think anyone who is on board with the idea is just operating from a place of selfishness. 

Other hobbies accept/tolerate it, but not ours and that is just they way it is, and the way many if not most of us want it to stay.We have really good reasons for it other then our selfish desires and just getting our kicks from poo pooing your idea of a blue and green plaid frog with wings that spits fire and glows in the dark... wait sorry, that was my dream!  ...Yet I'm still anti hybrid/designer frog. Hmm could it be because of all the inherent risk involved, real pragmatic reasons not to, and showing respect for my fellow humans and the animals they love? ...Why YES! ...YES! ...THAT'S IT! 

4. BONUS reason, yep you guessed it.... Why is there even a perceived need for this when the colors and patterns of this particular group of animals rival that of fresh and saltwater tropical fish? There probably is no other group of herps that displays this amount of color and pattern diversity and with such bright audacious coloration. Snakes, lizards, turtles, sure a few colorful example exist but does any one group rival dart frogs? Mantella, and some phelsuma and a few snakes and assorted other lizards can occasionally match a dart frog in awesome coloration, but that species or class of animals rarely approaches what we have in this hobby. So really what is the point beyond "I want it! I wan't it! Screw you guys!!!" ?????????????????????????????????

Now I'm slightly less afraid of transgenic animals that glow, or fluoresce as you'd need albino or similar lines to really get the effect (thus rare and unlikely to be quickly produced in mass), and because of the nature of the change those animals can usually be identified with a black light fairly easily and that would introduce a basic characteristic that lacks in our animals. As far as I know the GFP axolotl hasn't seemed to get to out of hand in the newt/salamander hobby (probably in part because of reasons I just listed), but still just from a position of respect to my fellow hobbyist, I'm not going to push for that if they don't want it... I actually started a conversation about such a thing years ago, and it didn't really seem to go over to well, so while I probably never would have attempted it on my own anyways, and I do think it is important for us to think about and discuss, I'm sure as hell not going to be the first jerk to create a GFP dart frog now ...and I think that is exactly how things should have went, and what certain other people should have done when their designer dart plans were found out and enraged the community.... *Show some respect for us and our very logical/pragmatic reasons why we are against it, that simple... but they failed.*

Disclaimer: If anyone is interested: to this day I've yet to buy a glo-fish, or a GFP axolotl. Not saying I never will, as they seem to be fairly accepted in their respective hobbies, but that is those hobbies, *not this hobby*. I don't know why so many seem to have trouble grasping it, other then bias from selfishness perhaps, but... *You do not exist in a vacuum. What you do does effect other people directly, or indirectly... but yes it does effect them. *


----------



## big_frog (Mar 16, 2010)

Ed said:


> According the literature on sustaining captive populations hybrids. There is abundant evidence that hybridization is the route of last resort when the population is going to go extinct if nothing is done.
> 
> This a good summary of the topic
> 
> ...


This is exactly what was done to save the Florida panther. Males from another subspecies were brought in to breed and save the population from extinction.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Many of us don't hold out much hope that our frogs will ever be used in a reintroduction plan, but perhaps someday as another route of last resort there may be a need for them. 

I can see in the future if cloning becomes easier/more reliable they might want samples from captive populations that they can then clone to create "clean" frogs that are suitable for breeding and eventual reintroduction. Maybe  ...I'm not sure with rapidly progressing technology we should shut the door on the idea/possibility completely.

Boy won't they be sorry when its all franken frogs in 20 years, when they are desperate and that might have actually been feasible


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

big_frog said:


> This is exactly what was done to save the Florida panther. Males from another subspecies were brought in to breed and save the population from extinction.


Actually eight females see 
Pimm, Stuart L., Luke Dollar, and O. L. Bass. "The genetic rescue of the Florida panther." Animal Conservation 9.2 (2006): 115-122. 

but it isn't necessarily the success that is being passed around as it appears as the goal was to add about 20% genetic variation to the population in trying to genetically rescue the Florida panther which did have genetic flow from other populations until the pressures of people not only cut the gene flow off but also reduced the population range and the population itself in the last couple of hundred years. One of the problems that is becoming apparent is that there is also displacement of the Florida panther by pure or primarily pure Texas panthers (via backcrossing) so it is too early to make the claim that the rescue has worked (see Maehr, David S., et al. "Evolution of population viability assessments for the Florida panther: a multiperspective approach." Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA (2002): 284-311.) 

This is part of the reason that it needs to be a last resort tactic. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

A hobbyist is someone who owns frogs, hybrids or not. You people have a specific goal within that hobby. You guys are more like the frog breeders union. You have a specific set of goals that the broader hobby does not have. You should realize that and form a group who actually follows that goal with random breeding or unrelated breeding and tracking this breeding to accomplish your goals. Trying to get all of the HOBBYISTS behind you is going to fail.
So when do you know that the frogs are too inbred to add in new genes? You guys are trying to define science and work from there instead of learning thru practicing actual science. Such a large group breeding so many different species/morphs and no one is documenting between related and unrelated pairings. You're trying to say all crosses will be bad when they aren't and some are actually healthier. It seems to me that you're trying to control or stave off actual learning and going just with the possibility that problems will arise, even if the problems are only 1% more than "normal" breeding(not worse than inbreeding).


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> A hobbyist is someone who owns frogs, hybrids or not. You people have a specific goal within that hobby. You guys are more like the frog breeders union. You have a specific set of goals that the broader hobby does not have. You should realize that and form a group who actually follows that goal with random breeding or unrelated breeding and tracking this breeding to accomplish your goals. Trying to get all of the HOBBYISTS behind you is going to fail.
> So when do you know that the frogs are too inbred to add in new genes? You guys are trying to define science and work from there instead of learning thru practicing actual science. Such a large group breeding so many different species/morphs and no one is documenting between related and unrelated pairings. You're trying to say all crosses will be bad when they aren't and some are actually healthier. It seems to me that you're trying to control or stave off actual learning and going just with the possibility that problems will arise, even if the problems are only 1% more than "normal" breeding(not worse than inbreeding).


Despite all your arguments to the contrary there is good evidence and common sense that says even if we did all you suggest, allowing hybrid/designer frogs to be accepted as mainstream would undermine all those efforts.

A frog tracking system and what not may provide an extra layer of protection, but it does not nullify the actions and consequences of those actions from others that step outside what has been traditional and reasonably successful to date. 

They still remove a portion of our limited founder stock from being used to perpetuate frogs as true to wild type as possible, they will still lie, or forget or just not care enough to protect the interests of others, yet you expect us to turn around and not just protect whatever right they currently have to do what they want, but to indulge them and allow it to be mainstream despite the risks it poses. I know you ignore a lot of the supposed risks and just consider them to be invalid/non existent but I don't think many of us feel you've actually made as good a case as others have for the opposite position.

In the end your best arguments are based in giving people a free pass to to put what we have at more risk then it seems a majority here find justifiable.... beyond another group's equally if not more so selfish desire, (Since we can't actually stop anyone hell bent on doing it, just make the environment less friendly, yet them doing it can put what we have now at risk)... *I see a moral/ethical gap there, one that gives us the high ground.*


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> A hobbyist is someone who owns frogs, hybrids or not. You people have a specific goal within that hobby. You guys are more like the frog breeders union. You have a specific set of goals that the broader hobby does not have. You should realize that and form a group who actually follows that goal with random breeding or unrelated breeding and tracking this breeding to accomplish your goals. Trying to get all of the HOBBYISTS behind you is going to fail.
> So when do you know that the frogs are too inbred to add in new genes? You guys are trying to define science and work from there instead of learning thru practicing actual science. Such a large group breeding so many different species/morphs and no one is documenting between related and unrelated pairings. You're trying to say all crosses will be bad when they aren't and some are actually healthier. *It seems to me that you're trying to control or stave off actual learning* and going just with the possibility that problems will arise, even if the problems are only 1% more than "normal" breeding(not worse than inbreeding).


I don't think anyone here would complain about an actual study that looked at these things. However, actual learning requires controlled studies, with known variables, precise and detailed records, a way to define and measure "healthiness", and has nothing to do with what's being done by the hybrid crowd. 

It might be 1% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% better (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing). The only thing is - if there's ANY chance it might be worse, why would you want to take that chance? 

If you feel strongly about advancing the discussion, put your money where your mouth is. Design a study and publish the results. Until that point, most people here feel that "it might not be bad" isn't the responsible position to be taking with threatened (or worse) populations of animals. YMMV.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Calivet said:


> I don't think anyone here would complain about an actual study that looked at these things. However, actual learning requires controlled studies, with known variables, precise and detailed records, a way to define and measure "healthiness", and has nothing to do with what's being done by the hybrid crowd.
> 
> It might be 1% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% better (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing). The only thing is - if there's ANY chance it might be worse, why would you want to take that chance?
> 
> If you feel strongly about advancing the discussion, put your money where your mouth is. Design a study and publish the results. Until that point, most people here feel that "it might not be bad" isn't the responsible position to be taking with threatened (or worse) populations of animals. YMMV.


Well said: So much so I'm going to say part of it too... in a slightly different way!!! 

...*Sometimes what you want isn't the responsible and/or most respectful thing to do... even if you technically have every right to do it. *


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

I realize that it took a lot of hard work from a handful of people to get dart frogs to us,the hobbyists. And a handful of people a lot of time and research, trial and error, to get these frogs thriving in the hobby. Health, food, successful captivity, it all didn't happen over night. And you can see the people who really appreciate what our founding fathers/mothers of the hobby did for us. They've developed or improved vitamins, housing, lighting, food sources,breeding conditions, etc.,etc, so people new to the hobby, for the most part, can just enjoy it.

But, for some, maybe it comes too easy. They don't appreciate the efforts of all who made this possible. Boredom? Too much allowance money? Because a pot-smoking, meandering, freshmen college prof. says you should argue your point and screw the people who made the hobby possible to begin with?

"Sssfffttt....'ere"


----------



## RRRavelo (Nov 21, 2007)

These are already arguably the coolest, most diverse, most colorful critters on the planet with complex behaviors and unique chemical adaptations. Why mess with a good thing by hybridizing; so you can create a new morph that makes a splash and gains you money?
If you decide to sell your hybrids label them as such at the least so we can steer clear...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

RRRavelo said:


> These are already arguably the coolest, most diverse, most colorful critters on the planet with complex behaviors and unique chemical adaptations. Why mess with a good thing by hybridizing; so you can create a new morph that makes a splash and gains you money?
> If you decide to sell your hybrids label them as such at the least so we can steer clear...


Exactly, and when you crap all over a community's desires that were here long before, and probably will be long after someone who needed the latest designer frog has come and gone... Don't whine that it pissed a few people off and they said as much. That's their right, just as it is Roadrunner's and other people's right to say their peace. That's the catch with freedom: you gotta put up with others being free... but you can sure as hell scream bloody murder about it, and that is what makes this country great 

Also while it may be inevitable that a Designer frog hobby niche gains a foot hold and is maybe already here: This conflict helps control how much influence certain people a part of that niche will have. This conflict likely slows the spread/progression of that shift in the hobby, and thus likely makes its unfolding more manageable. This conflict is in part the solution to itself, at least until there is a set of circumstances that triggers a massive paradigm shift, and then we will have whatever we have, but still even then the conflict will play a role in what that was, is, and becomes... and Ironically it is probably the conflict that will help insure that if there is a designer frog hobby here to stay, that those people actually have the raw materials for their franken frog experiments for the foreseeable future. 

Stepping back and saying "have at it!" ...Does little of this, if any good at all except maybe in the short term there are less hard feelings. I'll take a few bruised egos and dissatisfied hobbyists who didn't get a free pass to plunder our gene pools, if it helps ensure what we have is here for everyone to enjoy in the future. Basically inevitable or not, a designer frog hobby is short sighted and ultimately more founded in selfish desire and lack of respect then our position, because our position goes beyond our selfish desire for a colorful display animal and into the best interests of the animal itself far more... and that suggest to me we are better off without it for as long as that is possible.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

I just don't see it. It's not like hybrids or crossbreeds are some great accomplishment. I mean really frogs breed it's what they do. And like I said before I haven't seen a jaw dropping hybrid that I just had to have. No prettier or cooler than their pure bred counterparts. And this need for the hobby as a whole to except it, really boggles the mind. I mean really,we can't stop you. But this continuous push to have everyone say it's cool is just sad.


----------



## Punjab (Apr 30, 2014)

Handfishinghillbilly said:


> When they go extinct in the wild maybe you'll finally get it....people amaze me


I have absolutely zero stake in this hybrid/pure bread argument. It doesn't matter to me either way. People can do what they want with the things they own. And all anyone really needs to do is make their own choices with their money.

BUT, I think that a lot of the people in this thread specifically need to realize that it makes absolutely ZERO difference whether you have a pure bread, direct descendant of a wild caught frog, if that frog happens to become extinct in the wild. 

The frog you now have in your tank at home is no more like it's wild-living family members than a hybridized frog. I'm sure this will anger many of you but it's true. If all of the wild dendrobates in the world became extinct tomorrow it makes absolutely no difference that you have one in your home except for your own enjoyment. The only known record might as well be in a book because what you have became different the moment that it wasn't born in the wild. 
What I'm saying is there is actually a very tiny inconsequential difference between your pure bread frog and a hybrid of two previously pure bread frogs.

...I'll take my public flogging now...


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

Bread frogs. Lol is that along the lines of bread sticks?


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

Punjab said:


> The frog you now have in your tank at home is no more like it's wild-living family members than a hybridized frog. I'm sure this will anger many of you but it's true. If all of the wild dendrobates in the world became extinct tomorrow it makes absolutely no difference that you have one in your home except for your own enjoyment. The only known record might as well be in a book because what you have became different the moment that it wasn't born in the wild.
> What I'm saying is there is actually a very tiny inconsequential difference between your pure bread frog and a hybrid of two previously pure bread frogs.


Ok. Here's a scenario, you have to bring the King a frog for his birthday. Insult him and you could wind up on the rack for a few nights. You have an F1 and a hybrid™ to chose from. Which one do you bring him?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Punjab said:


> I have absolutely zero stake in this hybrid/pure bread argument. It doesn't matter to me either way...
> 
> The frog you now have in your tank at home is no more like it's wild-living family members than a hybridized frog. I'm sure this will anger many of you but it's true.
> 
> ...I'll take my public flogging now...


Please qualify your statement, as it makes zero sense to me. Also, if the hybrid discussion doesn't matter to you either way, why are you choosing to participate in it?


----------



## jdooley195 (Oct 19, 2009)

Punjab said:


> I have absolutely zero stake in this hybrid/pure bread argument. It doesn't matter to me either way. People can do what they want with the things they own. And all anyone really needs to do is make their own choices with their money.
> 
> BUT, I think that a lot of the people in this thread specifically need to realize that it makes absolutely ZERO difference whether you have a pure bread, direct descendant of a wild caught frog, if that frog happens to become extinct in the wild.
> 
> ...





That is the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## edgeofthefreak (Jan 2, 2014)

I've been thinking of this thread for a few days now, and I think I have a solution that would benefit both sides.

We have a group a people that do not want hybrid animals, instead they want "natural" animals, as they were created in their own natural environment.

We have a group of people that believe we should have "designer" animals, ones that are considered uniquely superior to the ones in nature.

We also have dividing line between these two groups, so I propose an agreement.

If you have animals from nature, that were raised as though they were in nature, you'll get natural money from me.

If you feel the need to take natural animals, and make them into something of your own design, then I have designer money for you. I'll take some of my very colourful Canadian currency, and cut it into shapes. Then I'll take currency from another country (Australia has pretty money, doesn't it?) and "add" to my new hybrid money.

Sure, Canadian money is nice and all, but honestly, I can do better. I'll make the prettiest money you've ever seen. And I'll gladly trade for likewise animals.

"Whoa, what country is THAT money from?

"It's not from a country. This is what some guy gave me for frogs that are also not from any particular country. This is hybrid money, and in many respects it is superior to the original monies that it came from..."

*Disclaimer: I realize animals are created in nature and currency is manufactured by people. This is just my take on the situation, and is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. A lot of really good discussion has gone on in this thread, and those of us in the tarantula hobby share the distaste for hybrids of any kind. At least the "dog breed argument" hasn't been brought up to death here...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Punjab said:


> I have absolutely zero stake in this hybrid/pure bread argument. It doesn't matter to me either way. People can do what they want with the things they own. And all anyone really needs to do is make their own choices with their money.
> 
> BUT, I think that a lot of the people in this thread specifically need to realize that it makes absolutely ZERO difference whether you have a pure bread, direct descendant of a wild caught frog, if that frog happens to become extinct in the wild.
> 
> ...


Ok ya it is different because even though it is a captive animal it is still that species, and the species at least is not extinct completely...and that matters to people. And who knows what technology will allow us to do. That cloning example I offered earlier is one possibility. Maybe someday we will have new avenues to the goal or just be desperate enough to tap the hobby frogs for a reintroduction project. Right now that is unlikely but if the frog is bred out of existence for the sake of satisfying the designer frog demand, then we've just given that chance however small away.... and that would make a lot of people sad/angry, and ultimately that should matter to people.

Also I'm really disappointed in how many people don't seem to realize that even if it is indirect their action can and do effect other people in a myriad of ways. None of us exit in a vacuum, and it is that simple yet people some how talk themselves out of that truth. Why? ...because they want something enough not to care how it effects others. 

So again we are down to which sides selfish desire is actually better for everyone AND THE ANIMALS... and that is ours unless there comes a time when hybridization is the only way to perpetuate some semblance of the species. But we don't seem to be there yet, so why risk throwing the baby out with the bath water just to satisfy someone else selfish desire that doesn't contain the same degree of respect for the animal, the people, and the possibilities... however slim?

That is what it comes down to. 2 groups selfish desire, only one of those groups selfish desire has the byproduct of maintaining the species as true to it's wild counter part as possible, and leaving the door open for future possibilities. The other risks closing that door, and risks leaving us with some frogs, but not the real deal.... and again that matters to a lot of people. 

*On side serves themselves almost exclusively, and the other side serves themselves, all future hobbyists, and the animals genetic integrity and continued existence in something much closer to its natural form then a franken frog. So which side has the moral/ethical high ground? ...OURS, because we serve everyone's interests to a greater degree in most cases, and we can't actually stop people from doing what they want, but the consequences of their actions could make what we want impossible eventually. However slim the risk of that is, risk does exist and only very shallow reasons exists to take that risk.*


----------



## Punjab (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm only addressing that some people seem to be under the impression that their pure bred lineage, domesticated frogs that live in a box with plants they picked out, eating bugs that they added, and depositing eggs in black film canisters make any more of a difference to the wild populations of that sub species than a hybridized version of two different sub species. 

Wild and house kept aren't even remotely the same. They're so much different than one another that house-kept and hybrid house-kept are much much much closer to one another.

Every argument made against hybrids is based in the exact same motive as every argument for hybrids. Your own personal interests. The rainforests and the various fields of scientific research do not care that you have pure bred frogs living in your home. Only you/we/us do, because it's something that you care about. 
And I think that's great. Hybrids, no hybrids, it doesn't matter relative to extinction of wild animals. Domesticated frogs have no effect on the survival of wild populations as they'll never be considered viable for reintroduction or for re-population.

If you must know, I personally love that individuals in this hobby tend towards a seemingly militant reaction to the idea of "designer" breeds. And I have absolutely no interest in ever acquiring hybrid frogs myself. It seems uncontrollable in other animal hobbies. Unfortunately, it also seems inevitable as more and more people become interested and capable of keeping them.


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

Let this thread die.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Punjab said:


> I'm only addressing that some people seem to be under the impression that their pure bred lineage, domesticated frogs that live in a box with plants they picked out, eating bugs that they added, and depositing eggs in black film canisters make any more of a difference to the wild populations of that sub species than a hybridized version of two different sub species.
> 
> Wild and house kept aren't even remotely the same. They're so much different than one another that house-kept and hybrid house-kept are much much much closer to one another.
> 
> ...


To a degree you are right but you dismiss the opportunities future technology may bring, or the necessity imposed by desperation, and also you dismiss the human factor where these animals hold more beauty and meaning to many as they are, not as others would have them be.

But it sounds like your mind is made up and it doesn't matter what points we can make that suggest several of your statements are debatable. At least it seems inspite of all that you still fall on our side... welcome to the moral/ethical high ground brother


----------



## snake5891 (Dec 10, 2009)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Who was it?


I'm not sure who it was.

It was at the Manchester Expo in NH.

I saw the hybrids while table browsing and just averted my eyes to the next table and walked away before finding out who was the vendor.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Punjab said:


> Domesticated frogs have no effect on the survival of wild populations as they'll never be considered viable for reintroduction or for re-population.


Like many in the pro-hybrid camp you are arguing one facet of the issue but ignoring all the others. You're correct in that it's VERY unlikely that any frogs we as hobbyists touch will ever be reintroduced into the wild...but to conclude that domesticated frogs have no effect on the survival of wild populations ignores almost every other argument in this thread. The demands that the domesticated frog market places on wild populations can vary wildly based on how hobbyists manage the collective.

Just some of the points you've not factored in:

Hybridization lowers lineage confidence and perception of worth, causing higher demand for wild caught.

Hybridization encourages novel pathogens, destroying collections and genetic variance within hobby, causing higher demand on wild caught.

There has yet to be one argument for hybridization that it actually benefits the hobby in any way.

For other points, see the first two pages of this thread including herbivrus' post which put a fork in that particular point rather elegantly.


----------



## jarteta97 (Jun 13, 2014)

Check the last, say .... half dozen pages of this thread, there's so much information that I've literally been strolling through and reading through maybe 5 pages whenever I had free time for the past couple of days:

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/166449-dartfrog-warehouse-usdartfrog-safedartfrogs-designerfrogs-usafrog-frogsupply-54.html


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Punjab said:


> I'm only addressing that some people seem to be under the impression that their pure bred lineage, domesticated frogs that live in a box with plants they picked out, eating bugs that they added, and depositing eggs in black film canisters make any more of a difference to the wild populations of that sub species than a hybridized version of two different sub species.


You do realize that they currently are not considered subspecies? But that is a technicality. 

Ah, check out the Anthropomorphic Allee effect.... the captive populations do matter.... 



Punjab said:


> Wild and house kept aren't even remotely the same. They're so much different than one another that house-kept and hybrid house-kept are much much much closer to one another.


Really based on what? Do you have anything to back this up? I have a significant doubt that captive animals that are outcrossed to separate populations whether captive or not are going to be genetically more similar to captive animals from a specific population. Even with inbreeding the math doesn't support that claim. 



Punjab said:


> Every argument made against hybrids is based in the exact same motive as every argument for hybrids.


I'm guessing you ignoring all of the risks of outcrossing depression then.... as well as the risks from the Anthropogenic Allee effect. 



Punjab said:


> Your own personal interests.


How is this different than your argument for hybrids? Can you provide proof that hybrids are going to benefit the captive populations? Can you provide proof that it will benefit the wild populations? There is hard science that puts a significant risk to crossing them to both captive and wild populations. Some of that proof has been posted in this thread as well as many others. 




Punjab said:


> Domesticated frogs have no effect on the survival of wild populations as they'll never be considered viable for reintroduction or for re-population.


While they are not suitable for reintroduction, your ignoring a large portion of the fact that wild caught animals "to supply new genes" to captive populations are considered highly desirable. If you think that the pure captive lines don't matter then your ignoring an important consideration in legal add illegal wild life trafficking. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jdooley195 (Oct 19, 2009)

This may be on topic... Have captive fertile eggs ever been introduced into the wild? Seems like it could work...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

jdooley195 said:


> This may be on topic... Have captive fertile eggs ever been introduced into the wild? Seems like it could work...


I don't think random frogs would pick up the random tads and transport them to water sources 

...Now captive hatched tads for many species should be able to feed fine on what they find once placed in suitable water sources, morph out and go on their merry way.


----------



## LoganR (Oct 25, 2013)

Dendro Dave said:


> I don't think random frogs would pick up the random tads and transport them to water sources
> 
> ...Now captive hatched tads for many species should be able to feed fine on what they find once placed in suitable water sources, morph out and go on their merry way.


Tads have been used to reintroduce a species. See: Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo Finds Success in Breeding Program for Rare Amphibian Species | Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

jdooley195 said:


> This may be on topic... Have captive fertile eggs ever been introduced into the wild? Seems like it could work...


Eggs not that I'm aware of. While not dendrobatids, in the Peurto Rican Crested Toad, the tadpoles of captive bred frogs are released. As a zookeeper I worked with an assurance colony of these animals.

Edit, damnit, Logan beat me to it.


----------



## zaius (Feb 21, 2008)

While not dendrobatids..1,100 critically endangered Southern Corroboree Frog eggs were released into a variety of natural and artificial pools in Kosciuszko National Park in Australia earlier this year.
The conservation program has been very successful in recent years, with eggs released each year since 2010.

https://taronga.org.au/news/2015-05-22/releasing-critically-endangered-corroboree-frog-eggs

More info on Corroboree Frogs

http://www.corroboreefrog.com.au/corroboree-frog


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Also, while not even amphibians, I believe there are some programs in the saltwater reef community where hobbyists grow frags of corals to be transplanted into the wild later. I've been out of that loop for a long time know but I know Eric Borneman was working on a project down in Florida.

Nobody still, has ever, come up with a good compelling reason for hybrids, NONE, ever. The best they can come up with is, "They're my frogs and I'll do whatever I want with them." and "Joo cant tell me what to do!" You know who else views the world with that mindset......?

Teenagers and my toddler.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Also, while not even amphibians, I believe there are some programs in the saltwater reef community where hobbyists grow frags of corals to be transplanted into the wild later. I've been out of that loop for a long time know but I know Eric Borneman was working on a project down in Florida..


Actually as more data comes out about coral genetics, adaptations to locals (ecotypes) etc, this process is probably going to end at some point until the genetics of the captive and wild populations are fully worked out as there is an obvious indication that this could easily cause long-term negative consequences. . For a review on this see Baums, Iliana B. "A synopsis of coral restoration genetics." Advances in Coral Husbandry in Public Aquariums. Public Aquarium Husbandry Series 2 (2008): 335-338. 

Baums, I. B. (2008). A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Molecular ecology, 17(12), 2796-2811.


There is also a risk to the changes in commensual bacterial colonies that are suspected to help with disease resistance Kooperman, Netta, et al. "Coral mucus-associated bacterial communities from natural and aquarium environments." FEMS microbiology letters 276.1 (2007): 106-113. this could also play into the long-term restoration efforts. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

LoganR said:


> Tads have been used to reintroduce a species. See: Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo Finds Success in Breeding Program for Rare Amphibian Species | Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo


Tadpoles are often considered a better choice as the release of metamorphs to adults of captive raised animals often resulted in large losses due to the sudden exposure to parasites that are adapted to them but the animals lack immune responses ... think small pox in the new world. 

Eggs can work for taxa that lack parental care but even still, none of the dendrobatids in the hobby are managed in a way that would make them acceptable for restoration efforts. Crested toads etc are all managed genetically including genetic populations for specific regions. Unless the entire species was extirpated from the wild and turned out to be a keystone species without which the ecosystem wouldn't recover the hobby has pretty much a zero chance of having animals in the hobby (or institutions) being used for that kind of restoration. Last I checked dendrobatids are not keystone species. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Ed said:


> Actually as more data comes out about coral genetics, adaptations to locals (ecotypes) etc, this process is probably going to end at some point until the genetics of the captive and wild populations are fully worked out as there is an obvious indication that this could easily cause long-term negative consequences. . For a review on this see Baums, Iliana B. "A synopsis of coral restoration genetics." Advances in Coral Husbandry in Public Aquariums. Public Aquarium Husbandry Series 2 (2008): 335-338.
> 
> Baums, I. B. (2008). A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Molecular ecology, 17(12), 2796-2811.
> 
> ...


You're probably absolutely right. I was actually surprised to hear this is or might be going on, and thought about the potential consequences. I'd hoped that they found a way to work through those issues.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Punjab said:


> Wild and house kept aren't even remotely the same. They're so much different than one another that house-kept and hybrid house-kept are much much much closer to one another.
> 
> Domesticated frogs have no effect on the survival of wild populations as they'll never be considered viable for reintroduction or for re-population.


Well, how do you define 'wild' and 'house kept?' Here are two situations that I know about, involving frogs, where 'house-'kept' frogs are being put into the wild. The Oregon Spotted Frog, _Rana pretiosa_, has lost ~95% of it's native range; the Oregon Zoo, every year since 1998, goes out and collects egg masses from the wild, they then hatch out the eggs in captivity, raise the tads in captivity, those tads morph out in captivity, and then spend between one and two years further in captivity before being released back into the wild. There is also almost the exact same process happening with _Rana sierrae_ with the San Francisco zoo and partners; but they are taking an extra step and 'innoculating' these frogs against chytrid. 

So yes, captive raised frogs certainly can be re-introduced in the wild. Is this exactly what would happen to our frogs? Probably not, I have no doubts my little glass box of Ameerega will never furnish offspring for re-introduction efforts; but somewhere down the line, if genetically it's shown there's no difference between captive and wild lines, then it's not that far off to be able to do something like what's being done with the above two species. Have offspring, raise them in-situ, etc etc. Will it be successful? We need more science to tell, but it's not an impossibility I don't think.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Tadpoles are often considered a better choice as the release of metamorphs to adults of captive raised animals often resulted in large losses due to the sudden exposure to parasites that are adapted to them but the animals lack immune responses ... think small pox in the new world.
> 
> Eggs can work for taxa that lack parental care but even still, none of the dendrobatids in the hobby are managed in a way that would make them acceptable for restoration efforts. Crested toads etc are all managed genetically including genetic populations for specific regions. Unless the entire species was extirpated from the wild and turned out to be a keystone species without which the ecosystem wouldn't recover the hobby has pretty much a zero chance of having animals in the hobby (or institutions) being used for that kind of restoration. Last I checked dendrobatids are not keystone species.
> 
> ...


Ed, I assume Zoos can take fresh imports and put them into their management program for possible reintroduction, (or can they?)...

But can zoos take animals from the hobby with known origins and put them into their management system and then after a few generations have suitable frogs for reintroduction? (I'm guessing no in this, but I forget exactly what the obstacles were, and if they included later generations that were properly managed by the zoo?)

Oh and I wanted to ask you about that cloning idea...What if anything beyond the tech hurdle would prevent them from taking cell samples and then producing "clean" frogs that are then properly managed for their or their offspring's eventual reintroduction?

...some questions 
Dave


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> Ed, I assume Zoos can take fresh imports and put them into their management program for possible reintroduction, (or can they?)...


Depends on the animal and the reason for the program but as things have progressed it is getting more complicated for zoos to start new programs. This is in no small part due to the logistics of maintaining a captive population that is free of the risk of novel pathogens while still sustaining a population that is large enough for genetic management. 



Dendro Dave said:


> But can zoos take animals from the hobby with known origins and put them into their management system and then after a few generations have suitable frogs for reintroduction? (I'm guessing no in this, but I forget exactly what the obstacles were, and if they included later generations that were properly managed by the zoo?)


At one time I would have said maybe but the real answer after all of this time is pretty much no. First off, known origins in this hobby have a lot of guesswork as vast majority lack the exact location from where they were collected. As I've cited before even a relatively small distance between locations can result in negative survival fitness due to outbreeding depression. This is before we get to the animals that are of questionable origin like a number of species that were supposedly never collected and exported legally from their country and instead originate from confiscated animals in Europe. 



Dendro Dave said:


> Oh and I wanted to ask you about that cloning idea...What if anything beyond the tech hurdle would prevent them from taking cell samples and then producing "clean" frogs that are then properly managed for their or their offspring's eventual reintroduction


Clean and genetically suitable are two different things that have to be met for any reintroduction program. One of the greatest hurdles for any hobby frog to be even considered is that the reproduction in captivity has a high probability of having fixed genes that are going to a real problem in the wild populations with a risk of causing the wild population to become unsustainable. People keep forgetting that conservation management via captive breeding is not in any way a static field as time goes on, more and more problems are found with the release of any captive animals and each of these discoveries moves the hobby's frog further from ever being acceptable. As an example see 

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch108.pdf 

Lynch, Michael, and Martin O'hely. "Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations." Conservation Genetics 2.4 (2001): 363-378.

The summary of this article is


> In summary, the consequences of gene flow from domesticated populations raise serious concerns about
> the use of supportive breeding programs to enhance the ability of a natural population to sustain harvesting (Larkin 1980; Cuenco et al. 1993) or to enhance genetic diversity (Kapuscinski and Lannon 1984; Wohlfarth 1993). While there may be good reasons for short-term efforts to boost the size of wild populations with propagules from a captive stock (Olney et
> al. 1994), long-term supplementation programs appear to be incompatible with the permanent maintenance of self-sustaining wild populations, unless the two population segments are kept in a state of long-term reproductive isolation


And this is with a population that is managed for genetic suitableness for release which is a far cry from the way the hobby has managed their frogs for a very long time now. The hobby really needs to either give up the dream of release or to actively manage their animals genetics which means things like not selecting the prettiest frogs to pair up or the largest but using random pairings as well as tracking their frogs for generations. It would also mean that people would have to commit to keeping frogs for the long-term (not getting rid of animals when the price drops or when they decide they want to make room for a new frog. Given the hobby's behavior and action in this respect its very clear that none of the frogs from the hobby are going to be suitable for release. 
Instead what is much more likely to happen if there is interest is that the nearest wild population will be used to source new animals to inhabit the area. They will probably be screened for pathogens and parasites and as long as something novel and lethal wasn't found be translocated and released. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dave this one would also help with your understanding. If you can get a copy its worth reading. I don't have a copy as my harddrive ate it when it died.. 

Frankham, Richard. "Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs." Molecular Ecology 17.1 (2008): 325-333. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

TarantulaGuy said:


> So yes, captive raised frogs certainly can be re-introduced in the wild. Is this exactly what would happen to our frogs? Probably not, I have no doubts my little glass box of Ameerega will never furnish offspring for re-introduction efforts; but somewhere down the line, if genetically it's shown there's no difference between captive and wild lines, then it's not that far off to be able to do something like what's being done with the above two species. Have offspring, raise them in-situ, etc etc. Will it be successful? We need more science to tell, but it's not an impossibility I don't think.


Programs like this still are a risk to the wild populations they are meant to bolster. Hatching the eggs and releasing the tadpoles is better than housing and then releasing older animals as losses of animals after metamorphosis is often due to captive adaptation which in general maladaptive for survival in the wild. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

You have no clue. You can actually perform studies yourselves. All you have to do is observe and keep notes.

You are all anti science. You want to use the current science which has nothing to do with dart frog hybridization to "prove" your justified in your leaving people out of the "hobby" and the ability to find out what the truth is.

You are just upping the standard to justify your bullying. It seems to me that they claim they have achieved hybrid vigor in their trials. you realize that the "harm" from hybridizing is an almost non existent difference in mutation of tads. Most of the differences are specific adaptations for their specific environment which has been altered tremendously for all animals in captivity so much so that and local adaptations made will be lost in captivity since there are no predators or conditions that rely on those adaptations. You are changing the environment so that the hybrids and purebreds are more closely the same than wild caughts and any captive frog. your changing their gut fauna in captivity, do you know how much of a role gut fauna plays as opposed to hybridization? 

These decisions you people seem to want to make for the hobby are not yours to make. You can see most of the founders were not worried about hybrids and made a tracking system to take care of any problems hybrids would create. Had that information not been deleted in the pearls of wisdom thread you'd all be able to see it for yourself but it seems that history is starting to be rewritten around here to keep this witch hunt going. Well best of luck with it.



Calivet said:


> I don't think anyone here would complain about an actual study that looked at these things. However, actual learning requires controlled studies, with known variables, precise and detailed records, a way to define and measure "healthiness", and has nothing to do with what's being done by the hybrid crowd.
> 
> It might be 1% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% better (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing), it might be 100% worse (and valid reasons have been given as to why that would still be a bad thing). The only thing is - if there's ANY chance it might be worse, why would you want to take that chance?
> 
> If you feel strongly about advancing the discussion, put your money where your mouth is. Design a study and publish the results. Until that point, most people here feel that "it might not be bad" isn't the responsible position to be taking with threatened (or worse) populations of animals. YMMV.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> You have no clue. You can actually perform studies yourselves. All you have to do is observe and keep notes. You are all anti science.


What is your obsession with promoting hybrids? The burden of proof, as it were, lies in the affirmative; eg "hybridizing frogs is better than not hybridizing." Keeping frogs in the current status quo, basically as close to wild type genetics as possible, is what you're trying to prove is bad. You claim we're anti-science, but you don't even understand basic scientific design processes? Many of us are actual biologists, or professional husbandry staff. We do actually know what we're talking about, ftr.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> You have no clue. *You can actually perform studies yourselves. All you have to do is observe and keep notes.*
> 
> You are all anti science. You want to use the current science which has nothing to do with dart frog hybridization to "prove" your justified in your leaving people out of the "hobby" and the ability to find out what the truth is.
> 
> ...


In other words, a controlled study? 

I'm not upping any standard. This IS the standard. I have multiple degrees in the biological sciences and clearly am not the one who "has no clue" as to how science gets advanced. Sitting in your basement going, "yup, looks healthier to me!", then not releasing whatever notes you've taken isn't a study. It isn't knowledge. It's anecdotal at best, and unsubstantiated opinion at worst. People have claimed to have discovered cold fusion, a cure for HIV, and that vaccines definitively cause autism too. Whoops. That's why the studies have to be 1 - RELEASED to the public, and 2 - REPRODUCED. Taking the word of someone who (based on their own voluminous writings on the web) has NO clue how genetics actually works isn't "knowledge". 

In answer to your questions regarding tads, I don't know. NEITHER DO YOU. Just because the answer is "maybe" doesn't mean you get to pretend that the answer is "yes". I do know that gut flora is an infinitesimal difference compared to hybridized DNA though, because you can change gut flora. You can't untangle hybridized DNA. You'll never get a lion or a tiger out of a liger. To some folks, that matters. 

Your post makes no sense. If the "founders" were not actually concerned about hybrids, they wouldn't have tried to come up with a tracking system, because...they didn't care. You don't track things you don't care about. Lotters seemed pretty open to the idea of hybridizing, didn't he? I guess that why you said "most". 

Irony is dogmatically stating that other people don't get to set the standards of the hobby. 

I gave you a politely worded scientifically solid rebuttal to your point. You respond with insults and pseudoscience. Sad.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> You have no clue. You can actually perform studies yourselves. All you have to do is observe and keep notes.
> 
> You are all anti science.


 ...Seriously 



Roadrunner said:


> These decisions you people seem to want to make for the hobby are not yours to make. You can see most of the founders were not worried about hybrids and made a tracking system to take care of any problems hybrids would create. Had that information not been deleted in the pearls of wisdom thread you'd all be able to see it for yourself but it seems that history is starting to be rewritten around here to keep this witch hunt going. Well best of luck with it.


1.
We make decisions for ourselves, and then we try to persuade others to do similar. We can't actually stop someone, but we don't have to let things we see as transgressions pass without mention. You are doing the same thing we do, only on the other side; and your belief that it is justifiable because it is one or a few vs many is just false/flawed logic. 

2. 
Maybe some founders were/weren't, but some of them are long gone, and many others have stepped in to fill their shoes. Regardless of what was said 5-20 years ago, the community evolves. Maybe someday it will evolve to embrace a designer frog niche, but we are free to rail against that just as you are to rail against us and call us bullies. We think you are wrong, you think we are wrong... welcome to the game of "Life". You get bonus points for acknowledging your own hypocrisy 

3. 
I have yet to see much of a response from the other side that addresses the point I've made repeatedly about how we can't stop them, just complain really loudly, yet what they do has the potential to put what we do at risk... No one on the other side seems to see an ethical/moral issue there? ...seriously?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Calivet said:


> In answer to your questions regarding tads, I don't know. NEITHER DO YOU. Just because the answer is "maybe" doesn't mean you get to pretend that the answer is "yes". I do know that gut flora is an infinitesimal difference compared to hybridized DNA though, because you can change gut flora. You can't untangle hybridized DNA. You'll never get a lion or a tiger out of a liger. To some folks, that matters. .


He's trying to downplay the following:


> For females from the large population, tadpoles were significantly smaller and more malformed in crosses with males from the small population, than with males from the large population.


from Sagvik, Jörgen, Tobias Uller, and Mats Olsson. "Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria." Conservation Genetics 6.2 (2005): 205-211. accessed from 
http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files\6063\articles\5372\LV68M29432114864.pdf 

In prior arguments he attempted to argue that outbreeding depression in animals other than frogs couldn't be applied to the frog populations so I had to dig up some that showed negative impact of outbreeding in frogs. 

One of the things that those who are arguing for "hybrid vigor" keep ignoring is that condition often lasts only a single generation and shows problems within 1-5 generations which is why outbreeding is the act of last choice to try and keep a population viable which doesn't always work. 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jarteta97 (Jun 13, 2014)

I love how the USA dart frog thread has bled over. I personally love hearing these debates, they teach me a lot, plus I've been spending my free time (I'm 17 btw) reading through them. I wonder if a "hybrid debate" subforum could be created, that would be interesting indeed. To quote Ed, 😉 

Some comments

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> You are all anti science. You want to use the current science which has nothing to do with dart frog hybridization to "prove" *your* justified in your leaving people out of the "hobby" and the ability to find out what the truth is.



"You're"

I know. I'm nitpicking here. But if I find just one typo in a science book, it goes right in the trash.


----------



## jarteta97 (Jun 13, 2014)

SwampMan said:


> "You're"
> 
> I know. I'm nitpicking here. But if I find just one typo in a science book, it goes right in the trash.


I'm the same way man, people mix up "their, there, and they're" all the damn time, and don't even get me started on good versus well and adjective versus adverb use ugh. 

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk


----------



## SwampMan (Jun 26, 2015)

jarteta97 said:


> I'm the same way man, people mix up "their, there, and they're" all the damn time, and don't even get me started on good versus well and adjective versus adverb use ugh.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk



'Then' instead of 'than' is what kills me.


----------



## allegedhuman (Nov 19, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> You have no clue. You can actually perform studies yourselves. All you have to do is observe and keep notes.
> 
> You are all anti science. You want to use the current science which has nothing to do with dart frog hybridization to "prove" your justified in your leaving people out of the "hobby" and the ability to find out what the truth is.


Can we move beyond claiming in these threads on hybridization that people who oppose hybridization are anti-science or don’t understand how science works? It is clear from these threads that many of us in fact DO know how science works because we work and conduct research in scientific fields. 

I don’t think this should become some macho “Whip out your degrees and lay it on the table to compare qualifications” competition but I feel there is a fairly well educated community that vehemently dispute the claim that “we don’t know how science works” and this should be pretty obvious as we continue to chime out.

Do people even read Ed’s posts, much less the papers he lists and not just their titles? It seems pretty silly to claim something like we don’t know how science works if you keep having to skip over annoying posts filled with citations from relevant published, peer reviewed papers used to support evidence-based reasoning. 

The common claim in this (and other threads) that you can’t use studies from one species to support an argument in a different species because those studies can't apply unless they are in the exact same kind of organism is getting old. If everybody understands how science works why do we keep having to explain how things like models function because their great power is in how they they allow us to study important biological processes that can be applied to other situations? That IS a major component of science… Unfortunately, I don’t think restating these facts are really going to change the minds of people who have their minds made up. 

When it comes to science, Ed’s post are exactly what this forum needs. Rational explanations backed up with independent PUBLISHED evidence to augment personal opinions and experiences. Yes, anybody can do “studies” and take notes, but not all studies will be well designed, or have appropriate controls, or be properly analyzed to pass snuff as “scientific studies” (Ugghh, curse you statistics..why can't I use a basic t-test or anova for everything...). They can be a good start for examples from personal experience or anecdote, but not necessarily enough to be passed off as facts to make policies off of. 

Everybody on the internet has an opinion. Not all opinions are based in evidence, facts, reality, whatever. When listening to all the different random/anonymous people on these forums I just hope people keep in mind that some people are going to be better sources for advice to consider seriously over others. 

Seeing as I don’t know any of you people and you don’t know me, about the only way we can form an opinion of each other’s screen name is through what we post. Based on reading the numerous solid posts from Ed I appreciate his (I’m assuming "he" but hey… as they joke “nobody on the internet knows you are a dog”…Woof to you “Ed”!) contributions in diverse topics from nutrition to conservation, I pay more credence to his advice than to other sources with unknown qualifications or experience. 

Especially when a lot of new topics in this area start “I’m new and have no real background/opinion/stake in this argument but ….(insert their contrary opinion on controversial subject they suddenly have extensive opinions/experience/knowledge in despite their introduction)……but, I’m just saying…”.

Trolling 101
1.	Pick a controversial topic to stir up some shit
2.	Introduce yourself as a novice 
3.	????
4.	Profit!
...wait no…this isn’t South Park… Step 4. Rack up your post count??? I dunno, but you get the idea…


----------



## cam1941 (Jan 16, 2014)

Seriously, someone should start a crazy new build right about now...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

allegedhuman said:


> s from Ed I appreciate his (I’m assuming "he" but hey… as they joke “nobody on the internet knows you are a dog”…Woof to you “Ed”!)


No offense taken ... there are actually a few pictures somewhere on the forum showing that I'm actually human. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

Handfishinghillbilly said:


> When they go extinct in the wild maybe you'll finally get it....people amaze me


They won't.


----------



## khaku2 (Jun 27, 2015)

allegedhuman said:


> Can we move beyond claiming in these threads on hybridization that people who oppose hybridization are anti-science or don’t understand how science works? It is clear from these threads that many of us in fact DO know how science works because we work and conduct research in scientific fields.
> 
> I don’t think this should become some macho “Whip out your degrees and lay it on the table to compare qualifications” competition but I feel there is a fairly well educated community that vehemently dispute the claim that “we don’t know how science works” and this should be pretty obvious as we continue to chime out.
> 
> ...


I noticed this thread was moved from the general discussion area to the beginner's forum. If that isn't applying bias in a very passive way, I don't know what is. 

This is a controversial topic because there isn't a concord on hybridization.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Because, if you have to ask, then you're a beginner. That's why it's here. Also, saying there is a 'discord' when it comes to hybridizing is like saying there's a discord with regards to something like evolution. The scientific community fully backs evolutionary theory, even though some media outlets would have you believe there is dissent among the ranks. The same is true with hybridizing. The community at large of experienced hobbyists do not condone hybridizing, even though a vocal few would have you believe there is dissent. Make sense?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

khaku2 said:


> I noticed this thread was moved from the general discussion area to the beginner's forum. If that isn't applying bias in a very passive way, I don't know what is.
> 
> This is a controversial topic because there isn't a concord on hybridization.


Basically what TarantulaGuy guy said...

There is pretty much a consensus here among senior members, which is if you have to ask you probably aren't the person qualified to pull it off. Most of the people who are on the other side of the issue are newer to the hobby and don't seem to fully appreciate the decades of experience that has informed the wisdom of the other side. 

For instance you very rarely see people talk about how they kept each species they wanna mix separately for years successfully. 

Is it not irresponsible to mix 2 or more species you have little to no experience with? ...Don't you think you'd have a lot better chance of success if you had practice with those species first? ...Don't you think those animals deserve that chance?


We aren't trying to rain on anyone's parade: it is just that those with the most experience tend to understand that if you attempt this, especially with minimal experience you will tend to loose more animals then had you not attempted it at all, and just kept them separately. 

We wanna see new people have as much success as possible, for their sake, and for the animals, and in some small way for our own, because what happens to you and the animals... matters to many of us


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

khaku2 said:


> I noticed this thread was moved from the general discussion area to the beginner's forum. If that isn't applying bias in a very passive way, I don't know what is.
> 
> This is a controversial topic because there isn't a concord on hybridization.





khaku2 said:


> Thank you for the compliment. I can assure you that I am neither interested in the economics of profiting from hybrids and am, in fact a new hobbyist.


If you're going to claim to be a new hobbyist, don't throw out accusations of bias when your post on a topic that's been amply covered in previous threads is placed into the beginner forum.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

khaku2 said:


> They won't.


Based on what evidence? While many dendrobatids in the wild are able to survive in disturbed habitat, that cannot be taken to mean that they will not go extinct. 

Are you also are aware that a hybrid between species that result in an animal of crossed parentage does not count as "saving" either species ... 



khaku2 said:


> I noticed this thread was moved from the general discussion area to the beginner's forum. If that isn't applying bias in a very passive way, I don't know what is.


1) Well given the fact that the vast majority of the hybrid discussions were either started here or were moved here I think you really don't have a leg to stand on to argue bias by the moderators. A small selection via the search function ..... 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/194177-about-dart-frog-hybridization.html 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/108249-hybridization.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/45570-hybrid.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/26716-morph-interbreeding.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/182026-azureus-x-inferalanis-hybrids-2.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/86753-captive-hybrids-devils-advocate.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/73570-please-define-hybrid-pdf.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/5439-question-i-hope-i-dont-get-flamed.html and while there are still more examples, I think I've made the point as virtually all of them have been in the beginner section. 

2. If you don't want the topic to be moved to the beginner section then you need to have an argument that isn't a beginner argument. If your able to make your point via information backed by citations and references and avoid the lack of "because I can arguments" or "your all bullies"; you'll have a lot better chance of it staying out of the beginner's section. 




khaku2 said:


> This is a controversial topic because there isn't a concord on hybridization.


Well I kind of have to say that any claims of a lack of concordance is premature so is the claim of controversial. You've yet to provide a compelling argument for hybridization and have simply ignored all of the citations referencing studies as a method of avoiding having to address their validity. Instead you've focused on other factors like indoctrination which the actual scientific support actually debunks. 

So far the people who have been advocating it in this thread have failed to make a compelling argument for and have ignored the data against. 
So other than people continually bringing it up while failing to address the literature against it, the topic really isn't that controversial. There is actually a pretty big concordance against it. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

khaku2 said:


> I noticed this thread was moved from the general discussion area to the beginner's forum. If that isn't applying bias in a very passive way, I don't know what is.
> 
> This is a controversial topic because there isn't a concord on hybridization.


There is a difference between there not being a concord and NOT LIKING the concord. I think that you and a handful of others have been very vocal in their opposition to what appears to me to be a solid majority opinion. There have been a whole lot of people that have given you cogent arguments against hybridization and have included citations to scientific studies to back them up. I have not seen a single pro-hybridization argument that was backed by science. I can't see your and others' arguments as anything other than a selfish effort to gain acceptance for a market you hope to exploit in the future.

If you are a troll, then bravo, sir, 120 posts is an impressive total. If you are not (and I am thinking this might be the case), then that makes me sad. You are entitled to your opinion and I really appreciate you and others voicing that opinion. If it is within my power, I will never touch any frog from you or any other pro-hybridization advocate. Even if you have both hybrids and non-hybridized stock, I would never trust your husbandry practices enough to buy anything from you.

Here is how I see it - you are wasting a lot of people's time by continuing to ignore the numerous posts with good, scientific citations and reasoning for why you shouldn't do what you are already doing. Rather than these people continuing to have to refute your baseless, opinion- and anecdote-driven posts, you should go make a "Super Pro-hybrid Dart Frog Forum" (I will even let you TM that!) and you and your handful of supporters can go beat your drum all day over there and see how much support you can conjure. Maybe enough people will come out of the woodwork over there that you can follow your dreams and spin up a new market segment. 

Sorry to be blunt, but I really feel like this has run its course. It doesn't seem like anybody is likely to be moved toward whichever side they are not already supporting. This seems to be a waste of bandwidth at this point.

Mark


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Roadrunner said:


> that the "harm" from hybridizing is an almost non existent difference in mutation of tads.


Aaron care to explain why you thought that hybrids did pose a threat to the hobby and then changed your mind? I remember this point you made more than once 



Roadrunner said:


> T*hey aren't a representation of an animal in the wild if they've been "hybridized" from different locations. We don't have enough people in the hobby to keep locale specific frogs around, what do these mixed or unknown lineage animals do for the space available for the "known" lineages. * If the unknowns are cool enough that everyone wants them then they push out a lot of the little brown frogs and less attractive ones. I understand that some people may never want the ones being pushed out but the more types available that there are the less room for each individual population that actually represents a real wild population.


Technically with the release of the Tesoros frogs, there even less space available for non-hybrid frogs. So it seems a little strange that your claiming that hybrids aren't a risk when you made a well reasoned argument that they are actually a threat to the hobby. 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Dang, I go away for a few weeks to care for a sick parent and come back to a whole thread that I didn't get to see from the get go. 



Dendro Dave said:


> To a degree you are right but you dismiss the opportunities future technology may bring, or the necessity imposed by desperation, and also you dismiss the human factor where these animals hold more beauty and meaning to many as they are, not as others would have them be.
> 
> But it sounds like your mind is made up and it doesn't matter what points we can make that suggest several of your statements are debatable. At least it seems inspite of all that you still fall on our side... welcome to the moral/ethical high ground brother


I only have a few minutes, I saw lots of posts that I'd like to respond to, but this one was on the last page so I'm hitting this one fist. 

What you're dismissing is the fact that the US gov won't allow pet dart frogs to be reintroduced to the wild. I can't see that ever being allowed. The frogs in the pet trade now are so inbred that I can't see them ever being viewed as representative of a wild population. When wild frogs are imported in as low of numbers as most of the dart frogs we have were, there is no way to know whether they are actually representative samples of the wild population or not. What is more likely is that collectors gathered individuals from the same spot that all looked similar. That doesn't mean that's representative across the whole of that population of frogs. I've seen very few life history studies on most of these wild frogs, which realistically means we're all shooting in the dark on what we think might be normal for a given population.

If the frogs are gone from the wild and only a frogs from a small group of founders are in the pet trade, then they are extinct. The US Endangered Species Act defines what extinction means, and it means from the wild. That doesn't mean there are any in hatcheries or zoos or what not but it means there aren't any in the wild. I suppose folks can not like that definition and use another, but that's what the ESA says.

- Mike


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tardis101 said:


> Dang, I go away for a few weeks to care for a sick parent and come back to a whole thread that I didn't get to see from the get go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That may be in the present, and believe me I don't hold out much hope that our captive frogs will ever come into play, but the possibility may exist in the future. However remote, it is still a reason not to go down the hybrid/designer frog path. 

We have seemed to make some strides getting importers to provide origin info, perhaps that will continue to improve. If we ever do get a legit frog tracking system adopted a hybrid/designer niche would probably undermine those efforts, because in the mean time if it becomes more accepted then by the time we get such measures in place it might lessen their impact. 

The frog tracking is an extra layer of protection, but once designer frogs are an accepted part of the hobby their numbers will increase. Increased numbers mean increased instances where shady people pass them off as something else to make a sale, or uninformed people don't do their due diligence, and of course people who want such things don't have a vested interest in protecting the rest of the hobby's interests, as long as colorful frogs exist they can buy. On the other hand what we do keeps colorful frogs for everyone to enjoy, not just us or the designer frog crowd. My guess is these designer frog people are still interested in normal dart frogs.

Then there is the human factor that I mentioned. To many people something that is as close to the wild type as possible holds more meaning and thus value. With limited founder stock as you mentioned, involving a percentage of our gene pool in the creation of designer frogs effectively "taints" those frogs in the minds of many, and thus removes them from the mainstream hobby. Down the road I can only see that as having an adverse effect on our frog lines.

In the end there is basically only one or two good reasons to stand by and just let it happen without doing what we can to prevent or slow it... People want it, and some think they can make money at it. It does not serve the animals, and it does not serve the majority of hobbyists, and at least in the minds of many it presents a real risk. For others to dismiss that risk and then force it upon us to me leaves those people on pretty shaky moral/ethical ground. At the very least what we do allows these frogs to exist in a form close to wild type, and provide enjoyment for thousands while not loosing to many of our frogs of a particular line to would be frog designers. I've yet to see a decent argument against us having the moral high ground for this reason. Ultimately the best anyone can do is just dismiss our concerns as invalid... Yet I think enough intelligent people have raised valid concerns that tactic is found wanting. 

*Both positions are ultimately selfish, but only one of them does more to protect the animal's most natural form possible in captivity/genetic integrity, and serve the most people. Designer frogs only serve the selfish few who want them... our frogs and our ways serve everyone. 

There are just so few reasons to accept it, and many more to fight it. Ultimately even if we are destined to loose, this conflict will likely result in a slower and more controlled unfolding, that will probably represent the safest way for the frogs and people involved, (So worth it IMHO). Plus we still have the problem that the main commercial force behind trying to eek out a designer frog niche has proven themselves to be untrustworthy in the minds of many of us. It is hard to imagine a worse entity to usher in the designer frog era 

Basically this whole argument reminds me of trying to explain to a child that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and that their actions can have ramifications beyond just them. They want it!!! They want it!!! They want it!!! ...and they hate us because we won't just hand over the fate of the hobby to them without a fight. *


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Dendro Dave said:


> That may be in the present, and believe me I don't hold out much hope that our captive frogs will ever come into play, but the possibility may exist in the future. However remote, it is still a reason not to go down the hybrid/designer frog path.


I didn't say it is a reason to cross frogs. I am however saying it's not an argument not to. There is no possibility in the future that pet frogs will be allowed to be returned to the wild. I work as an endangered species biologist with the FWS. There is no chance.



Dendro Dave said:


> In the end there is basically only one or two good reasons to stand by and just let it happen without doing what we can to prevent or slow it... People want it, and some think they can make money at it. It does not serve the animals, and it does not serve the majority of hobbyists, and at least in the minds of many it presents a real risk. For others to dismiss that risk and then force it upon us to me leaves those people on pretty shaky moral/ethical ground. At the very least what we do allows these frogs to exist in a form close to wild type, and provide enjoyment for thousands while not loosing to many of our frogs of a particular line to would be frog designers. I've yet to see a decent argument against us having the moral high ground for this reason. Ultimately the best anyone can do is just dismiss our concerns as invalid... Yet I think enough intelligent people have raised valid concerns that tactic is found wanting.


All of this is conjecture and extremely egotistical. The basic idea you're presenting is that individual pet owners have any say or authority over what someone else is or isn't doing. That's false. Keeping wild endangered frogs in glass boxes does not serve the animals, but people are forgetting that inconvenient truth. The whole hobby is on shaky moral/ethical grounds. I'm not any better. I have pet dart frogs too. But I'm not going to lord it over others and try to play the moral high ground card. None of us have moral high ground here. You can fool yourself if you want.



Dendro Dave said:


> *Both positions are ultimately selfish, but only one of them does more to protect the animal's most natural form possible in captivity/genetic integrity, and serve the most people. Designer frogs only serve the selfish few who want them... our frogs and our ways serve everyone. *


*

I agree with the first half of the first sentence but the rest isn't accurate. Neither position does anything to protect the animal's natural form. Nothing at all. It's not reasonable to assume that the current status of any dart frog in the pet trade has protected the species genetic integrity, because the original imports didn't represent the full breath of that species genetic diversity in the wild. Maybe, just maybe, if several hundred frogs were originally imported and their lineages tracked and a breeding program setup to maximize genetic diversity had been established, we might be in a different world now. But that didn't happen as far as I can tell. 



Dendro Dave said:



Basically this whole argument reminds me of trying to explain to a child that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and that their actions can have ramifications beyond just them. They want it!!! They want it!!! They want it!!! ...and they hate us because we won't just hand over the fate of the hobby to them without a fight. 

Click to expand...

*I agree, the whole discussion is like trying to explain something to a child who simply wants to do and believe what they want.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> I didn't say it is a reason to cross frogs. I am however saying it's not an argument not to. There is no possibility in the future that pet frogs will be allowed to be returned to the wild. I work as an endangered species biologist with the FWS. There is no chance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lots of overstatement going on here. Do you know how variable the genetics of the individual species are? Do you know what numbers were actually imported? Can you cite a study that lists the numbers required for these species to maintain genetic integrity? Do you know how many WC frogs are still in captivity and still reproducing? Do you have a study that determines what percentage of genetic loss occurs in the F1/F2/F3 generations (which could span decades), and when the alleles are actually lost vs merely being selected against in a cup? Do you have an explanation why you feel that maintains SOME percentage of the original DNA as opposed to zero percentage with hybridizing are morally equivalent as nothing?

Also, why would the USFWS has anything whatsoever to say about what Peru (or other country of your choice) does or does not decide to release into its jungles?


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Calivet said:


> Lots of overstatement going on here. Do you know how variable the genetics of the individual species are? Do you know what numbers were actually imported? Can you cite a study that lists the numbers required for these species to maintain genetic integrity? Do you know how many WC frogs are still in captivity and still reproducing? Do you have a study that determines what percentage of genetic loss occurs in the F1/F2/F3 generations (which could span decades), and when the alleles are actually lost vs merely being selected against in a cup? Do you have an explanation why you feel that maintains SOME percentage of the original DNA as opposed to zero percentage with hybridizing are morally equivalent as nothing?
> 
> Also, why would the USFWS has anything whatsoever to say about what Peru (or other country of your choice) does or does not decide to release into its jungles?


Do you know anything about basic population ecology? Sounds like you don't. I'm not going to explain the basics of conservation biology to you. I think it would likely be an entire waste of my time. You're more than welcome to use google. 

Also your question about why the USFWS surprises me. However, I will point you to the relevant information.

How CITES Works

The USFWS would have something to say about it (at least dart frogs in the US) since CITES includes (CITES appendix I, II, and III): 
Dendrobatidae Poison frogs
Adelphobates spp. 
Ameerega spp. 
Andinobates spp. 
Dendrobates spp. 
Epipedobates spp. 
Excidobates spp. 
Hyloxalus azureiventris 
Minyobates spp. 
Oophaga spp. 
Phyllobates spp. 
Ranitomeya spp.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> Do you know anything about basic population ecology? Sounds like you don't. I'm not going to explain the basics of conservation biology to you. I think it would likely be an entire waste of my time. You're more than welcome to use google.


Please. Condescend more. Again, many of us here are *professional biologists* or husbandry staff members of zoos. Tell us again how much we don't know. Go on.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> Please. Condescend more. Again, many of us here are *professional biologists* or husbandry staff members of zoos. Tell us again how much we don't know. Go on.


When the condescension doesn't match your view you call it out? But when it's in the other direction you don't say a word? The entire forum is saturated with large egos being condescending towards others. This thread is a perfect example and members have repeated pointed out that the OP is new to the hobby and implied (if not outright stated) he just doesn't understand the issues. 

Being a biologist or husbandry staff at a zoo or anywhere else doesn't mean someone understands or even studied conservation genetics or the ecology of managing rare populations. The same thing is true for biologists at FWS. Just because they work there doesn't mean they are experts on all things related to biology. Like you, I too am a professional biologist. I do work exclusively with endangered and rare species.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

What's ridiculous is that people who come on here, with almost zero dart frog experience (their own admission) come here and attempt to dictate the way the hobby should progress. Ed has posted a massive amount of literature indicating that hybrids are definitely NOT a good thing for the hobby, as well as the countless logical arguments delineating point after point of negative aspects of hybridizing. No one has come back with Ed's equivalent of literature as to why hybridizing is a good thing. And that is crucial. If you want to try and prove the status quo is bad, you damned well better have the evidence to back it up. So far, NO one, yourself included, has presented that evidence.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> When the condescension doesn't match your view you call it out? But when it's in the other direction you don't say a word? The entire forum is saturated with large egos being condescending towards others. This thread is a perfect example and members have repeated pointed out that the OP is new to the hobby and implied (if not outright stated) he just doesn't understand the issues.
> 
> Being a biologist or husbandry staff at a zoo or anywhere else doesn't mean someone understands or even studied conservation genetics or the ecology of managing rare populations. The same thing is true for biologists at FWS. Just because they work there doesn't mean they are experts on all things related to biology. Like you, I too am a professional biologist. I do work exclusively with endangered and rare species.


No, what is ridiculous is you actually not answering any of my questions. You know, the ones that are required to actually know anything about population ecology? Especially, drumroll please, the number of WC frogs currently in captivity. Without knowing that number, your statement that the pet frogs do NOTHING to retain the genetics of the wild caught frogs is, as I stated, a gross overstatement. Without knowing the specifics of what the genetics of the species are, again, your statement that the pet trade and hybridization both do nothing to save the genetics of the species is actually completely false as long as there are WC frogs in collections, and that's not actually debatable. To what degree that genetic warehouse is complete IS, but it requires the asking of questions you couldn't be bothered with. 

I made no statement, sir. I listed a number of questions that need to be answered before a conclusion is reached. You are the one showing a complete lack of understanding in making your accusation. 

There are lots of places in the world that keep frogs that aren't the USA. As stated, USFWS has zero say of what Peru does with its own forest. Unless you can quote for me the part of CITES that gives them that power, or states that Peru can't do as it wishes with its own species and country.

And what most have pointed out to the OP is that claiming to be new to the hobby but coming in making dogmatic, accusatory statements while attempting to couch the thread as an attempt at "a discussion" is counterproductive at best, and strains credulity as to one's intentions at worst.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> What's ridiculous is that people who come on here, with almost zero dart frog experience (their own admission) come here and attempt to dictate the way the hobby should progress. Ed has posted a massive amount of literature indicating that hybrids are definitely NOT a good thing for the hobby, as well as the countless logical arguments delineating point after point of negative aspects of hybridizing. No one has come back with Ed's equivalent of literature as to why hybridizing is a good thing. And that is crucial. If you want to try and prove the status quo is bad, you damned well better have the evidence to back it up. So far, NO one, yourself included, has presented that evidence.


AGAIN you are trying to confuse the points being made and you and several others continue to post misinformation. I have not said hybridizing is "good." What I have said (over and over) is that the information presented does not support the conclusion that a hybrid is "bad". Ed's "massive amount of literature" does not support the opinion being put forward. Most of what has been posted isn't on frogs let alone on dart frogs. The one pivital paper being pointed to over and over is about a hermaphrodite nematode. Your end point is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the other side (which is fallacy btw). I don't see anyone trying to prove a hybrid is "good." The OP is asking essentially why is bad.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Calivet said:


> No, what is ridiculous is you actually not answering any of my questions. You know, the ones that are required to actually know anything about population ecology? Especially, drumroll please, the number of WC frogs currently in captivity. Without knowing that number, your statement that the pet frogs do NOTHING to retain the genetics of the wild caught frogs is, as I stated, a gross overstatement. Without knowing the specifics of what the genetics of the species are, again, your statement that the pet trade and hybridization both do nothing to save the genetics of the species is actually completely false as long as there are WC frogs in collections, and that's not actually debatable. To what degree that genetic warehouse is complete IS, but it requires the asking of questions you couldn't be bothered with.


Again, a fallacy. An attempt to shift the burden of proof from your side to the other. I'm not saying hybrids are good. I'm saying the information presented doesn't support the conclusion they are bad. 



Calivet said:


> There are lots of places in the world that keep frogs that aren't the USA. As stated, USFWS has zero say of what Peru does with its own forest. Unless you can quote for me the part of CITES that gives them that power, or states that Peru can't do as it wishes with its own species and country.


Let me clarify my statement since you're focusing on what another county can or can't do. You're right the USFWS can't tell another country what they can do within their own boarders. However, if you are in the US, which you and your frogs (as an example only), the USFWS would have jurisdiction/say over the export of your frogs to another country.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

And again, you fail to (somehow) display an understanding of the way literature works? When you check the references of any paper a good chunk of them are oftentimes not on the species the original paper is about. A model system is studied in one taxa, and oftentimes applied across several other taxa if the evidence is strong enough to do so. This is like...basic science 101. You cannot possible study every single organism on the planet to the same degree, so this is the compromise we make as scientists. If you're going to discount it in this particular situation, then you may as well discount the majority of ecological research out there. Good luck passing that view off as the mainstream. And again, for the umpteenth time. It is the duty of the people proposing we change the status quo to present enough evidence to make their case. AGAIN, scientific design 101. There is no ground for pro-hybrid people to stand on unless they present a significant amount of evidence demonstrating they have the scientific 'high-ground' as it were. Until that is the case, this conversation essentially cannot, and should not progress. There's no fallacy of shifting proof, this is the way science works. When you set out to demonstrate a change in a particular status quo, you are the one required to present evidence, not the other way around.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> Again, a fallacy. An attempt to shift the burden of proof from your side to the other. I'm not saying hybrids are good. I'm saying the information presented doesn't support the conclusion they are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me clarify my statement since you're focusing on what another county can or can't do. You're right the USFWS can't tell another country what they can do within their own boarders. However, if you are in the US, which you and your frogs (as an example only), the USFWS would have jurisdiction/say over the export of your frogs to another country.


You really don't remember what you post, do you? I was responding to this statement : 



> Neither position does anything to protect the animal's natural form. Nothing at all. It's not reasonable to assume that the current status of any dart frog in the pet trade has protected the species genetic integrity, because the original imports didn't represent the full breath of that species genetic diversity in the wild.


Unless you know the number of WC frogs in collections, and unless you know with those species what the critical number is to accurately reflect genetic diversity for said species, this statement is wrong. Period. And you don't have that data. And without that data, you can't make any credible conclusions on to what degree the genetic species integrity has been compromised. As I said - overstatements. I didn't say your end conclusion was incorrect, I said you had no justification in dogmatically stating it. Words have meanings. Don't twist them, it doesn't convince anyone who knows how to read. 

My initial statement was that USFWS has no control over Peru. I think its also odd that you feel that if Peru wished to reimport stock from the USA that USFWS would prevent it. 



tardis101 said:


> AGAIN you are trying to confuse the points being made and you and several others continue to post misinformation in what I can only assume is an attempt to mislead others. I have not said hybridizing is "good." What I have said (over and over) is that the information presented does not support the conclusion that a hybrid is "bad". *Ed's "massive amount of literature" does not support the opinion being put forward.* Most of what has been posted isn't on frogs let alone on dart frogs. The one pivital paper being pointed to over and over is about a hermaphrodite nematode. Your end point is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the other side (which is fallacy btw). I don't see anyone trying to prove a hybrid is "good." The OP is asking essentially why is bad.


Yes, it does. It does not PROVE the point, but it most assuredly supports it. As has been stated repeatedly, the "hybrids AREN'T bad" camp is unable to advance any reasons why it isn't. And, as has also been stated repeatedly, many feel that erring on the side of caution is the ethical position when dealing with animal husbandry. 

Words have meaning, especially in a scientific discussion.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> And again, you fail to (somehow) display an understanding of the way literature works? When you check the references of any paper a good chunk of them are oftentimes not on the species the original paper is about. A model system is studied in one taxa, and oftentimes applied across several other taxa if the evidence is strong enough to do so. This is like...basic science 101. You cannot possible study every single organism on the planet to the same degree, so this is the compromise we make as scientists. If you're going to discount it in this particular situation, then you may as well discount the majority of ecological research out there. Good luck passing that view off as the mainstream. And again, for the umpteenth time. It is the duty of the people proposing we change the status quo to present enough evidence to make their case. AGAIN, scientific design 101. There is no ground for pro-hybrid people to stand on unless they present a significant amount of evidence demonstrating they have the scientific 'high-ground' as it were. Until that is the case, this conversation essentially cannot, and should not progress. There's no fallacy of shifting proof, this is the way science works. When you set out to demonstrate a change in a particular status quo, you are the one required to present evidence, not the other way around.


Actually I'd say you don't understand the way peer reviewed literature works. Yes, models are used and yes the lit cited section of a paper is going to present similar works on taxa that are not the target of the study. That wasn't my point at all, which unfortunately you continue to miss. My point is that you are exactly wrong about who's duty is it is make their case. And that you continue to be confused about the "case" I am making. I'm again, not saying hybrids are good. I'm saying the information presented does not support the conclusion they are bad. Especially since pet frogs in the US are never going to be placed back in the wild. 

Ultimately I don't actually have a personal opinion on hybrids, other than I don't want one, so I don't buy them. I'm not concerned with someone else producing them. I am saddened that supposed experts here are pushing an agenda and an obvious attempt to dazzle people with science that doesn't actually support their position.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Calivet said:


> Yes, it does. It does not PROVE the point, but it most assuredly supports it. As has been stated repeatedly, the "hybrids AREN'T bad" camp is unable to advance any reasons why it isn't. And, as has also been stated repeatedly, many feel that erring on the side of caution is the ethical position when dealing with animal husbandry.
> 
> Words have meaning, especially in a scientific discussion.


Again the same fallacy being presented. Shifting the burden of proof. Again I'm not saying hybrids aren't bad and I'm not saying they are good. I'm saying the evidence doesn't support the conclusion they are bad. The burden of science is to disprove the null hypothesis. The people who are making the case that hybrdis are bad need to disprove the null hypothesis, which could potentially be done, but hasn't been.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

No? Take this for example. There's an invisible pink teacup orbiting Mars. You can't see it, but it's there! I have no evidence to back up my claim, but I demand that you take it seriously. 

This is the same situation. The status quo, and the accepted ethical situation is currently that hybrids are bad. This is *not* in dispute. The view of the hobby at large is that hybrids are not condoned. If you want to propose that we change this, then you. present. the. evidence. Why is that hard to grasp?


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> No? Take this for example. There's an invisible pink teacup orbiting Mars. You can't see it, but it's there! I have no evidence to back up my claim, but I demand that you take it seriously.
> 
> This is the same situation. The status quo, and the accepted ethical situation is currently that hybrids are bad. This is *not* in dispute. The view of the hobby at large is that hybrids are not condoned. If you want to propose that we change this, then you. present. the. evidence. Why is that hard to grasp?


Well yes, you're right, that's exactly the situation, except you're the one making the assertion that the pink teacup is there. I'm saying there isn't evidence to support that conclusion.

Since we are using colorful analogies, let me expand on yours. You submit a paper to Nature for peer review and publication. The paper asserts the pink teacup orbits Mars and cites a bunch of other published literature showing blue paper clips, and red spoons that orbit other planets, as evidence to support your conclusion. However, your paper itself has no research evidence of it's own to present. That paper would be rejected and wouldn't' be published. Not because it's not potentially accurate (i.e., that there is in fact a pink teacup orbiting Mars), but because there isn't evidence to support the conclusion.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

Is there evidence that absolutely proves that hybridizing has negative consequences specifically in Dendrobatids? No, at least none that I, myself am aware of. However, there certainly is evidence to support, but not necessarily confirm, without a doubt, its truth. But this statement is still supported by evidence. And if one disputes this evidence, that it absolutely okay! The problem does not lie with members of the board trying to push an agenda, but it is a commonly accepted idea within the hobby (as well as several experts, biologists, etc.) and, as a result, one must provide ample evidence for this idea to be overturned. Take football (American) for example: Any play may be challenged. However, there must be clear evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, right? If the ruling on the field is incorrect, and it can be proven, the ruling is then overturned. However, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the refs are wrong, then the play will stand. Now when we apply this to our current situation, does this not make sense? The common idea of many hobbists, off and on this forum, is that hybridizing species/varieties/whatever, is ethically wrong and can have negative effects on the owner and the frogs themselves. I, thus far, have not seen any evidence that proves to me that hybridizing is okay. Therefore, I will err on the side of caution and say it is not okay. If scientists want to do a scientific, controlled study on this, awesome. However, it is my personal opinion that it is not up to the average, everyday hobbyist or retailer to do so.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tardis101 said:


> I didn't say it is a reason to cross frogs. I am however saying it's not an argument not to. There is no possibility in the future that pet frogs will be allowed to be returned to the wild. I work as an endangered species biologist with the FWS. There is no chance.


Fair enough, and I have to defer to your experience level there, but however remote the odds, I don't think you can truly say 100%, because we already have examples where similar things have been done, and future technologies and gene banks etc... might open up new doors to use the genetic material from hobby frogs if not the actual frogs themselves. There is a history of people saying "it absolutely won't happen" eventually being wrong. But I do concede that the odds are exceedingly remote. 




tardis101 said:


> All of this is conjecture and extremely egotistical. The basic idea you're presenting is that individual pet owners have any say or authority over what someone else is or isn't doing. That's false. Keeping wild endangered frogs in glass boxes does not serve the animals, but people are forgetting that inconvenient truth. The whole hobby is on shaky moral/ethical grounds. I'm not any better. I have pet dart frogs too. But I'm not going to lord it over others and try to play the moral high ground card. None of us have moral high ground here. You can fool yourself if you want.


Not at all; We can't actually stop them unless they let us stop them. Nothing we are doing prevents anyone from playing mad scientist in their frog room. But like when we see people over populate an underwhelming vivarium, or unhealthy frogs on a table at a show, or pet stores trying to feed darts large crickets... We have every right to stand up and say "We don't like it, and we don't want it to happen", err or something to that effect. And that is all we are doing here. 

Where I see an ethical/moral difference is that our way of doing things lets everyone enjoy owning dart frogs, but if only people with the right connections/most well informed are reasonably safe from accidental purchase of designer frogs, or running afoul of the community then I see that as a problem. I see that what they do puts what we do at risk. At the very least it will likely result in removing some animals from our small gene poop because those frogs and perhaps the people who deal in them will be considered "tainted".

When all we can do is complain, and what they are doing actually risks what we have I see a moral/ethical gap there that at least ever so slightly gives us the high ground. Our way overall serves the most interests, their way only serves them, but our way also serves them if they like to keep dart frogs. 




tardis101 said:


> I agree with the first half of the first sentence but the rest isn't accurate. Neither position does anything to protect the animal's natural form. Nothing at all. It's not reasonable to assume that the current status of any dart frog in the pet trade has protected the species genetic integrity, because the original imports didn't represent the full breath of that species genetic diversity in the wild. Maybe, just maybe, if several hundred frogs were originally imported and their lineages tracked and a breeding program setup to maximize genetic diversity had been established, we might be in a different world now. But that didn't happen as far as I can tell.


I was speaking more to the point that the animal at least represents something closer to its wild kin, then a designer frog in the eyes of the majority (it seems). Some of us see that as in the animals best interests and not just our own, though admittedly it is hard to separate the two in some ways because in part the value the animal has is based on it being more like its wild counter part then a designer frog, but arguments have been made against hybrid vigor, and outcrossing depression and what not that I think suggest that there is at least some risk to the frogs themselves. We'd rather not take that risk just so someone can have a designer frog, and again tainted frogs may lead to a smaller gene pool for the rest of us to work with so that could result in more health issues and sooner rather then later. 

*So at least 2 ways there the animal's health may be served by our way of doing things. *




tardis101 said:


> I agree, the whole discussion is like trying to explain something to a child who simply wants to do and believe what they want.


If that is a dig at our side, I've conceded both sides are being selfish, but I've just shown at least 2 ways designer frogs may threaten frog health, and we still have the human factor that lends more meaning/enjoyment to frogs that we feel are closer to wild type then designer frogs (and the fact that even the designer crowd can probably get some enjoyment out of those frogs), and we have the practical difficulties that may arise if designer frogs become accepted such as more morph/locale confusion, buyer's remorse, the less informed running afoul of the community which may effect enjoyment, etc..etc..etc...

So again, we are left with few if any reasons other then they want what they want, but our side wants what they want, but may have the better way for the frogs health, and may be better for the majority of hobbyists that will have less difficulty finding the frogs they want with out having to navigate a minefield of designer frogs and potentially shady business practices that are easier to get away with because less people are vigilant against them if things change and that niche becomes more accepted.

So we are still up on the score board vs the designer frog crowd, and we still have a slight moral/ethical lead.

They are free to do as they like, but we don't have to like it and welcome our new designer overlords with open arms, and still I question the ethics of not respecting what came before, and what currently is in favor of a personal desire for designer frogs. I'm all for being a rebel... "Who so would be a man must first be a nonconformist" and "Rebellion is the first sign of sanity" are two of my favorite quotes, but I'd like to see a little more reason for rocking the boat then what the other side has presented so far. I see no need for a designer frog rebellion, and at least a few good reasons for things staying the same, or same + frog tracking and whatnot. We certainly have room for improvement, but I can't imagine the designer niche serving that need other then just to scare us into action.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> Is there evidence that absolutely proves that hybridizing has negative consequences specifically in Dendrobatids? No, at least none that I, myself am aware of. However, there certainly is evidence to support, but not necessarily confirm, without a doubt, its truth. But this statement is still supported by evidence. And if one disputes this evidence, that it absolutely okay! The problem does not lie with members of the board trying to push an agenda, but it is a commonly accepted idea within the hobby (as well as several experts, biologists, etc.) and, as a result, one must provide ample evidence for this idea to be overturned. Take football (American) for example: Any play may be challenged. However, there must be clear evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, right? If the ruling on the field is incorrect, and it can be proven, the ruling is then overturned. However, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the refs are wrong, then the play will stand. Now when we apply this to our current situation, does this not make sense? The common idea of many hobbists, off and on this forum, is that hybridizing species/varieties/whatever, is ethically wrong and can have negative effects on the owner and the frogs themselves. I, thus far, have not seen any evidence that proves to me that hybridizing is okay. Therefore, I will err on the side of caution and say it is not okay. If scientists want to do a scientific, controlled study on this, awesome. However, it is my personal opinion that it is not up to the average, everyday hobbyist or retailer to do so.


I mostly agree with you. The only thing I'd add would be to say that in football referees are paid professionals hired to make the call. No one elected/hired me, or anyone else, referee of what is or isn't ethical in the dart frog hobby.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Food for thought. Restricted natural hybridization between two species of litter
frogs on a threatened landscape in southwestern Brazilian
Amazonia 

Seems to indicate selection against natural hybrids is ongoing in these two species of Allobates.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> I mostly agree with you. The only thing I'd add would be to say that in football referees are paid professionals hired to make the call. No one elected/hired me, or anyone else, referee of what is or isn't ethical in the dart frog hobby.


Right, but you understand my point, yes? The general consensus is that hybridizing is bad. Anybody is free to disagree, but there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement. The only evidence that I have seen supports the idea that hybridizing shouldn't be done, however people seem to be challenging that statement without solid evidence. Ya feel me?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tardis101 said:


> Again, a fallacy. An attempt to shift the burden of proof from your side to the other. I'm not saying hybrids are good. I'm saying the information presented doesn't support the conclusion they are bad.


I get that you aren't arguing for hybrids, just that we haven't in your mind made enough of a case that they are bad, so let me address your point and methodology specifically even though I've touched on some of this before....

Why hybrids/designer frogs are bad, or at least present more inherent risk (Please tell we don't have to argue that more risk here is bad?)

1. 
More confusion. Animals that shouldn't be crossed may get crossed, and intentionally or unintentionally down the road someone ends up with something that wasn't what they wanted. We already have cases of buyer's remorse documented in the USAfrog thread. 

2.
We at least have some evidence that there could be significant health issues. Proof? no... but more risk then before those points were made? ...Yes, and that risk represents a reason why hybrids are worse then non hybrids. If I can't speak for others then I can at least speak for myself and I feel that risk is bad, and that is all that it is required for it to be bad. It has effected me... I'm effected... It is bad. My word is my bond, is my proof 

3. 
For many of us (knowing full well these frogs aren't wild) still find value, enjoyment, and meaning in having a frog that feels/seems closer to the wild counterpart then a designer frog. I've seen little if any evidence that suggest the designer frog is closer to the wild frog then the typical hobby frog. That is bad in the minds of many of us. Fewer frogs out there that I would want is bad to me, and I think to many others also... so again we have a way in which hybrids are bad.

4.
The people challenging the status quo, are in some cases by some perceived to be disrespecting the community at least, if not the frogs themselves. Is someone's designer frog fetish worth all the strife their pot stirring causes in the community? I see the social effects coupled with few or zero pragmatic reasons for a designer frog niche other then more varieties of pretty frogs for people who don't care about the things we care about, as bad.... thus designer frogs are more trouble for the hobby then they are worth in my eyes, and that is bad for me. Why is my perspective not valid???

5. 
#2 could be considered as containing this point, but I think it deserves it's own number...
Every frog and probably most hobbyists that participate in a designer frog will be perceived by many to be tainted. It will mean less frogs available for people to work with to perpetuate our current "pure" or "pure as can be" lines that we feel more closely represent wild type frogs. Again that could lead to quicker and more severe genetic bottlenecks and eventual health issues... Thus hybrid/designer frogs put the current hobby frogs at more risk of disappearing and/or encountering health issues down the road then a hobby without designer frogs.... so BAD. 

6. 
A hobby that accepts a designer frog niche is going to be inherently more tolerant of "mistakes" where maybe it was a mistake, maybe frogs that look like a certain frog sell for more, so we'll call it that and hope no one does their home work, and other assorted practices. It is true that the potential for such things exits now, but i think it is pretty self evident that we will likely see more of it if designer frogs and associated business practices (good or bad) become the norm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devil's advocate....

Reasons for hybrids:

1. Someone wants one

2. Someone thinks they can make money from them

3. The slight possibility that at some point we may NEED to cross frogs to improve genetic diversity (But should that not be something the community comes to a consensus on, rather then one rogue individual/group deciding for us???)

Are there more good reasons?
---------------------------------------

Full disclosure (again): 

I find hybrids, genetic aberrations, and at least the idea of a designer frog niche fascinating. There is actually a part of me that wants it, but the truth is that no matter how I come at the argument from a pragmatic point of view, and also one of respectfulness, ethics, morality; I just can't justify it to myself... 

The scales always tip at least slightly for the anti designer frog side, unless I just ignore all logic, ethics, morality and practical concerns to focus solely on my own personal selfish desire... but I just can't justify telling the rest of these people to go screw themselves because I want to cross a red galac and blue azureus to make a purple frog 

Frankly it boggles my mind that so many can justify it to themselves 

So in me you have at least one example of a person where if they truly thought it could coexist with the rest of the hobby they'd say "have at it", and if gained enough acceptance might actually participate in it, but I can't see a way for that to happen, and I certainly don't see the paradigm shifting enough any time soon for me to risk alienating so many of my fellow hobbyists to satisfy some curiosity at their possible expense.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> Right, but you understand my point, yes? The general consensus is that hybridizing is bad. Anybody is free to disagree, but there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement. The only evidence that I have seen supports the idea that hybridizing shouldn't be done, however people seem to be challenging that statement without solid evidence. Ya feel me?


I do see/understand your point. Fair enough. But there may also be a consensus in a stadium full of Cardinals fans when the ref calls a Cardinal player out too but that doesn't mean they are right.  I was in St. Louis the last couple weeks so thought I'd use them as an example. 

"...there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement." This is what continues to blow my mind. Science doesn't work this way. I don't understand why people aren't understanding that. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. In this case claiming hybrids are bad. I challenge the statement because there isn't evidence to support it. 

Like i said. I don't have a dog in this argument. I don't actually care one way or the other. What i do care about is claiming science supports a particular view when it doesn't.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> I do see/understand your point. Fair enough. But there may also be a consensus in a stadium full of Cardinals fans when the ref calls a Cardinal player out too but that doesn't mean they are right.  I was in St. Louis the last couple weeks so thought I'd use them as an example.
> 
> "...there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement." This is what continues to blow my mind. Science doesn't work this way. I don't understand why people aren't understanding that. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. In this case claiming hybrids are bad. I challenge the statement because there isn't evidence to support it.
> 
> Like i said. I don't have a dog in this argument. I don't actually care one way or the other. What i do care about is claiming science supports a particular view when it doesn't.


Did you read the paper I posted?


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> I do see/understand your point. Fair enough. But there may also be a consensus in a stadium full of Cardinals fans when the ref calls a Cardinal player out too but that doesn't mean they are right.  I was in St. Louis the last couple weeks so thought I'd use them as an example.
> 
> "...there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement." This is what continues to blow my mind. Science doesn't work this way. I don't understand why people aren't understanding that. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. In this case claiming hybrids are bad. I challenge the statement because there isn't evidence to support it.
> 
> Like i said. I don't have a dog in this argument. I don't actually care one way or the other. What i do care about is claiming science supports a particular view when it doesn't.


Science does support that view though. Outbreeding depression has absolutely been proven to exist in several species of plants and animals. We take what we know about outbreeding depression in other species (including other amphibians, as Ed pointed out), and apply it to Dendrobatids. This is not far-fetched, as scientists commonly do this in many other fields of science with different things. So, there is evidence to suggest that it could be bad. In my mind, I see no clear benefit of hybridizing. In fact, the only evidence I have is toward possible negative consequences. I go where the evidence leads me. When I take this into account, I see no reason to hybridize, because neither I nor the frogs benefit from it, and it could potentially have negative consequences, as seen in several other species of living things. I do not see this as illogical, because again, these things have been observed in other species, and while not DIRECTLY studied in Dendrobatids, we can assume that this holds true to them as well.

And yes, we aren't always right. I've seen plenty of terrible calls before! Remember when we had the replacement refs a few years ago? So I may be entirely wrong, and I do understand that! Somebody may come out with evidence to suggest that hybrid vigor actually persists through several generations in Dendrobatids. Then the calling will be challenged and the play will be under review. But until then, the ruling on the field stands.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> If the frogs are gone from the wild and only a frogs from a small group of founders are in the pet trade, then they are extinct.


You must be using a different definition than the one on the USFW, this is actually the definition of an extirpated species not an extinct one. 


> Extirpated species - A species no longer surviving in regions that were once part of their range.


Accessed from USFWS: Endangered Species Glossary



tardis101 said:


> The US Endangered Species Act defines what extinction means, and it means from the wild.


Not according to the USFW.... extinct is defined as 


> A species no longer in existence.


accessed from USFWS: Endangered Species Glossary 

You have it backwards... the ESA defined endangered through the use of the word extinct. In that if the animal is likely to go extinct throughout its range it is endangered. Not the other way around. 

So how can a person who is supposed to be a and I quote 


tardis101 said:


> I work as an endangered species biologist with the FWS


not know the correct definitions used by USFW with respect to the ESA? It seems to me that it is more than a little difficult to work with endangered species when you don't know the regulations for the job your supposed to be doing? 

Can you illuminate us on that fact?... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> I work as an endangered species biologist with the FWS


You do realize that under your standards this claim is meaningless unless you've been working with endangered dendrobatids right? So lets drop the hypocrisy and double standard attempts to disregard and discredit other arguments since if your bringing the standard to the discussion, you yourself have to abide by it. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> Being a biologist or husbandry staff at a zoo or anywhere else doesn't mean someone understands or even studied conservation genetics or the ecology of managing rare populations. The same thing is true for biologists at FWS. Just because they work there doesn't mean they are experts on all things related to biology. Like you, I too am a professional biologist. I do work exclusively with endangered and rare species.


Except when the person has been actively reviewing the literature for their arguments as opposed to winging it and attempting to disregard and ignore everything that doesn't agree with them. Your repeated claims of how the cited literature can't be applied is meaningless. Under your standards as I noted elsewhere we can't use the Ames test to determine which chemicals are likely to be toxic, or mutagenic for people. We can't use other animals as models for potential teratogens in people as that would also be an incorrect applications. All of the data on nutritional requirements of exotic animals is invalid because it was based on the studies in domestic species. None of the population mathmatical models that were developed or refined through the us of rapid generational animals like Drosophila are invalid including important ones like Hardy-Weinberg principles .... 
even thought all of which are clearly accepted science practices as applied to other taxa. 

As a result, you need to cough up some proof why those models and citations are not applicable to dendrobatids or drop that portion of the argument. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. In this case claiming hybrids are bad. I challenge the statement because there isn't evidence to support it.


 For peer reviewed literature to be disregarded, an argument supported by facts and references is required. So it is your opinion that the evidence hasn't been provided but as has been repeatedly noted, there are problems with your definitions and attempts to disregard the information. 



tardis101 said:


> Like i said. I don't have a dog in this argument. I don't actually care one way or the other. What i do care about is claiming science supports a particular view when it doesn't.


This is an obvious load of BS. *If you didn't have a dog in the fight, you would have ignored the discussion. So the fact that you are involved and attempting to discredit the argument is strong evidence of a dog in the fight*. 

*Again simply saying science doesn't support it isn't a valid argument. Cough up the proof that it isn't valid. And unless your going to be hypocritial, it has to be peer reviewed and specific to dendrobatids and oppose the argument put forth. *

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> Well yes, you're right, that's exactly the situation, except you're the one making the assertion that the pink teacup is there. I'm saying there isn't evidence to support that conclusion.
> 
> Since we are using colorful analogies, let me expand on yours. You submit a paper to Nature for peer review and publication. The paper asserts the pink teacup orbits Mars and cites a bunch of other published literature showing blue paper clips, and red spoons that orbit other planets, as evidence to support your conclusion. However, your paper itself has no research evidence of it's own to present. That paper would be rejected and wouldn't' be published. Not because it's not potentially accurate (i.e., that there is in fact a pink teacup orbiting Mars), but because there isn't evidence to support the conclusion.


Papers which provide metaanalysis of existing research without original research and which draw conclusions from it get published in peer reviewed journals all the time. They summarize the data, comment on the quality of said data and research, and point out areas where further research should be focused. They are absolutely not automatically rejected.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ww


tardis101 said:


> "...there is no real evidence that I have seen to refute that statement." This is what continues to blow my mind. Science doesn't work this way. I don't understand why people aren't understanding that. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. In this case claiming hybrids are bad. I challenge the statement because there isn't evidence to support it.
> 
> Like i said. I don't have a dog in this argument. I don't actually care one way or the other. What i do care about is claiming science supports a particular view when it doesn't.


I know you haven't had a chance to respond to all the other comments, but I think it should be pointed out that several claims have been made that a designer frog hobby can take place without risk to the rest of the hobby, and that essentially "hybrids aren't bad" some have even argued they are better... Do not these claims require the same burden of proof as ours according to your standards?

Perhaps we should also keep in mind that this isn't a peer reviewed journal (though cited sources I think are useful), nor is it a court of law that has a clear rule on who has to prove what, and to what degree, (reasonable doubt)... 

It is a court of public opinion, and as such it seems to me the burden falls equally to both sides for their respective claims.Though It seems to me we have more evidence for potential health risks, community strife, and pragmatic concerns about how designer frog niche could coexist without adding to the overall inherent risk to our captive lines and the enjoyment of the greatest # of people (given human nature and arguably examples of less then flawless execution in other hobbies)... all of which I think add up to it being pretty reasonable to suggest they qualify "as bad stuff/more inherent risk, and in greater variety" brought to us courtesy of designer frogs and their supporters.

Moral, ethical, practical.... on every level the hybrid side seems at best maybe to tie the game in any one particular category, but no matter how you add up the points they fall short of the overall win... if we are sticking to sports analogies.

Also all of this boils down to them wanting us to abandon our values and give them permission or at least tacit approval so they can have their cake and quite possibly eat it at our expense. We are expected to protect their interests at the possible expense of our own, yet I see little or no discussion on how they plan to protect our interests and what incentive there is for our side. 

Seems like they want a lot and aren't willing to do much for us. In fact we've been blamed for the whole mess since we didn't just roll over years ago and/or get wide spread adoption of frog tracking... Again seems like their's is the more inherently selfish position that serves the fewest interests in the long run. 

However slim the margin we seem to always have a slight edge because we can point to a lot more ways a designer frog niche could possibly introduce us to more risk, yet they can point to almost no ways in which we benefit... only they do, but their ways put the version of the hobby I'm most concerned with and currently enjoying at risk, but all we can do is make it a bit uncomfortable for them... Yep still see an inherent moral, ethical, and pragmatic gap in their position vs ours.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So we have to know everything not documented about all species to disprove a paper from another animal? What about papers that prove hybrid vigor for the tiger salamander, why don't ANY dart frog models follow that? We could throw papers that COULD be true models from other animals all day but the science isn;t complete till someone tests it for DART FROGS. Peer review doesn't apply when you use that paper for a different animal than the paper provided for. I talk to scientists all teh time and they all think you have it wrong Ed. You can not "prove" anything about dart frogs by throwing out a paper on a horse. I may not be able to scientifically prove the differences but you can't tell me that the science follows when darts can have thousands of chances at offspring to get rid of deleterious allelles and a horse has few offspring. That and throwing in herpetology papers instead of herpeteculture (the study of animal in CAPTIVITY) papers shows you want the effects of releasing animals in the wild while not having the variables in captivity those genes key for from the wild. I call bullshit on the whole argument that you have the right to exclude others from the hobby on your pseudoscience.


Ed said:


> For peer reviewed literature to be disregarded, an argument supported by facts and references is required. So it is your opinion that the evidence hasn't been provided but as has been repeatedly noted, there are problems with your definitions and attempts to disregard the information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

But they don't use them to bully people. That is called modeling and is done by people in that specific field, not hobbyists.


Calivet said:


> Papers which provide metaanalysis of existing research without original research and which draw conclusions from it get published in peer reviewed journals all the time. They summarize the data, comment on the quality of said data and research, and point out areas where further research should be focused. They are absolutely not automatically rejected.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Some people care about people and science and could care less about hybridizing. As long as people don't force their will on others to keep them from enjoying the hobby the way they like and throw pseudoscience around to do it I wouldn't be here.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Because I'm human and never stop learning and the people side of it(bullying). Besides you can't hold on to all the genetics of the frogs to save anything because the hobby is fickle and won't track animals and there are too many morphs and we don't know where they begin and end or how the genetics flow. I'm quite sure ALL tinc morphs haven't been seperated for 10k years. it's not meant to be here to fulfill anyone's wishes over the wishes of another person involved. Besides you proved to me that coccidia wasn't a problem.  The hobby is not a genetic receptacle(like a zoo) to be rationalized as how to "manage" it by a select few. And I'm still "against" hybridizing, I just don't think I have a right to tell anyone how to manage their frogs. And i'm a "scientist" first. I crave experimentation and knowledge, not the coralling of it to use for my own ends.

Can you tell me why you throw out papers as proof that have barely reached statistical significance for mutation as proof of something detrimental? Esp when it didn't follow them and also said that you should watch while moving one population to another and didn't show that the new habitat was nothing like the 2 original habitats? You never cite ANYTHING that would be a problem with using your papers as proof of something while the scientists who write the papers show more possible problems in the opening statements and say that there needs to be a lot more research done. you are more sure in your paper being proof than the scientist is that it's proof for what it was ACTUALLY designed for.



Ed said:


> Aaron care to explain why you thought that hybrids did pose a threat to the hobby and then changed your mind? I remember this point you made more than once
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Definitely not the norm for the hobby. Most frogs don't make it past 2-3 years and most people breed sibs together. Don't make 1 or 2 examples look like the hobby is doing things right. You don't even track lineage. And how will you know when they are too inbred to outcross without problems(if the paper Ed posted is true). You have NO plan you are just winging it and expect everyone to follow your leads to make it "work".
Do YOU know any of these things and what have YOU done about it?


Calivet said:


> Lots of overstatement going on here. Do you know how variable the genetics of the individual species are? Do you know what numbers were actually imported? Can you cite a study that lists the numbers required for these species to maintain genetic integrity? Do you know how many WC frogs are still in captivity and still reproducing? Do you have a study that determines what percentage of genetic loss occurs in the F1/F2/F3 generations (which could span decades), and when the alleles are actually lost vs merely being selected against in a cup? Do you have an explanation why you feel that maintains SOME percentage of the original DNA as opposed to zero percentage with hybridizing are morally equivalent as nothing?
> 
> Also, why would the USFWS has anything whatsoever to say about what Peru (or other country of your choice) does or does not decide to release into its jungles?


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> Most frogs don't make it past 2-3 years and most people breed sibs together.


Your data for this?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

He also said you should track lineages? So we don't take all his advice just use him to fight our fights? I've posted articles on how hybrids are pushing out local populations. How do you know that isn't the path dart hybrids would follow. Is it just sheer volume of papers that shows you, even if none of them are dart frogs? You realize that's not how science is done? It leads to more papers not rock hard conclusions that we bully peoples business over.


TarantulaGuy said:


> What's ridiculous is that people who come on here, with almost zero dart frog experience (their own admission) come here and attempt to dictate the way the hobby should progress. Ed has posted a massive amount of literature indicating that hybrids are definitely NOT a good thing for the hobby, as well as the countless logical arguments delineating point after point of negative aspects of hybridizing. No one has come back with Ed's equivalent of literature as to why hybridizing is a good thing. And that is crucial. If you want to try and prove the status quo is bad, you damned well better have the evidence to back it up. So far, NO one, yourself included, has presented that evidence.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

When did you guys prove inbreeding was superior? Your wild type obsession is what drives collecting from the wild. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. YOU are the ones who drive the smuggling and ideology. I don't understand basic science design process'? I'm not the one using papers about other animals to "prove" anything. When that is done it's not to prove anything it's to set up an actual paper to test the theory. There is no argument that hybridizing is "better" than not. Just that it isn't any worse than inbreeding and the way you guys manage the hobby currently. ALthough there is a term hybrid vigor that shows there is a chance. There are NO papers on darts and even if there was 1 it takes 3 to make a trend so one paper means nothing without a body of literature.



TarantulaGuy said:


> What is your obsession with promoting hybrids? The burden of proof, as it were, lies in the affirmative; eg "hybridizing frogs is better than not hybridizing." Keeping frogs in the current status quo, basically as close to wild type genetics as possible, is what you're trying to prove is bad. You claim we're anti-science, but you don't even understand basic scientific design processes? Many of us are actual biologists, or professional husbandry staff. We do actually know what we're talking about, ftr.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Again, do YOU know these things? Great so now you're saying we may be able to transport a novel pathogen from our collection back to Peru? You know most morphs of darts are NOT endangered? They may be listed on cites but their populations are fine. Some of them even thrive in human presence. A "store" of genetics is not needed, only a representation of what actually occurs in teh wild. And since they are no longer in the wild they no longer need all teh genes you want to save. Just let them evolve to our tanks. Do people still take wolves from teh wild? Their genetics don't make them the best representative for a pet, there is a reason for that. Dart frogs should also be allowed to be chosen for their thriving in captivity. If hybrids make for better pets then anyone who just wants a pet should be able to have one. It's not up to you to MAKE someone be a receptacle for your genetics. 



Calivet said:


> No, what is ridiculous is you actually not answering any of my questions. You know, the ones that are required to actually know anything about population ecology? Especially, drumroll please, the number of WC frogs currently in captivity. Without knowing that number, your statement that the pet frogs do NOTHING to retain the genetics of the wild caught frogs is, as I stated, a gross overstatement. Without knowing the specifics of what the genetics of the species are, again, your statement that the pet trade and hybridization both do nothing to save the genetics of the species is actually completely false as long as there are WC frogs in collections, and that's not actually debatable. To what degree that genetic warehouse is complete IS, but it requires the asking of questions you couldn't be bothered with.
> 
> I made no statement, sir. I listed a number of questions that need to be answered before a conclusion is reached. You are the one showing a complete lack of understanding in making your accusation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Some people care about people and science and could care less about hybridizing. As long as people don't force their will on others to keep them from enjoying the hobby the way they like and throw pseudoscience around to do it I wouldn't be here.


Ok can we address the fact that we don't actually stop anyone from doing this stuff???

What we do is vocalize that we don't like it. If someone stops doing it, then that person stopped themselves, and that's on them. Again I see a flawed sense of accountability. 

How is our vocal opposition to a designer dart niche any different then when we are vocal about unhealthy frogs on a table at a show, overcrowding a poorly designed vivarium, or unethical business practices?

You seem to have a sensitivity to "bullying", possibly a borderline paranoia because you seem to see it everywhere on our side, just not when you do it, or others do it to us.

All we do is make the climate less then comfortable for those people, but they are still free to act according to their own will. Ironically you seem to use the same tactic by attempting to make us uncomfortable with accusations of bullying and other failures.... Again why are you/they excused from being a bully and we aren't?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*You want an example of bullying??? Here it is...*

When a minority shoves designer frogs down our throat after vocal opposition to the point where we practically begged them not to do it, but since *WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY STOP THEM*, they did it anyways and now we all have to deal with the consequences.... *THAT'S BULLYING*.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> I don't understand basic science design process'? .


Unfortunately by now the answer to this question has become exceedingly obvious to the rest of us. It's frustrating really.

Also, you can quit with the bellyaching about bullying. No one is bullying anyone. You playing that card is really an insult to people who have had to deal with or deal with real issues of bullying everyday. You attempting to use that as an ad hom against those whom you disagree with here is insulting to them. it only makes you look bad.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

And they always have to be rifined because one animal IS NOT the other and they are different. This is MODELING and is not PROOF. We do not use these models to attack other people and their choices because IT IS NOT PROOF. Stop saying it has to be BETTER for the frogs to be accepted, that's not how things work. you guys inbreed to the point of problems but then say people can't hybridize because it will cause problems. Pot meet Kettle.


TarantulaGuy said:


> And again, you fail to (somehow) display an understanding of the way literature works? When you check the references of any paper a good chunk of them are oftentimes not on the species the original paper is about. A model system is studied in one taxa, and oftentimes applied across several other taxa if the evidence is strong enough to do so. This is like...basic science 101. You cannot possible study every single organism on the planet to the same degree, so this is the compromise we make as scientists. If you're going to discount it in this particular situation, then you may as well discount the majority of ecological research out there. Good luck passing that view off as the mainstream. And again, for the umpteenth time. It is the duty of the people proposing we change the status quo to present enough evidence to make their case. AGAIN, scientific design 101. There is no ground for pro-hybrid people to stand on unless they present a significant amount of evidence demonstrating they have the scientific 'high-ground' as it were. Until that is the case, this conversation essentially cannot, and should not progress. There's no fallacy of shifting proof, this is the way science works. When you set out to demonstrate a change in a particular status quo, you are the one required to present evidence, not the other way around.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

This is from the abstract of the paper I linked earlier, which no one read, per the usual. 

"Effects on the genetic variability of adjacent populations are only detected at sites located 1.5 km downstream and upstream of the core area, suggesting the existence of selection against hybrids, possibly mediated by postzygotic isolation mechanisms. The contact zone between A. femoralis and A. hodli is the first well delimited suture line between anuran species ever documented in the Brazilian Amazon."

A paper showing evidence for selection _against_ hybrids, in situ, with dendrobatids. Or are you going to discount this for some obscure reason as well?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> And they always have to be rifined because one animal IS NOT the other and they are different. This is MODELING and is not PROOF. We do not use these models to attack other people and their choices because IT IS NOT PROOF. Stop saying it has to be BETTER for the frogs to be accepted, that's not how things work. you guys inbreed to the point of problems but then say people can't hybridize because it will cause problems. Pot meet Kettle.


I think most of us are willing to admit the current situation is less then ideal, but tell us again how 2 wrongs make a right???

Seems highly likely that a free pass or even tacit approval for hybridization just compounds whatever problems we already have... Yet another reason not to just keep quiet about it.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Tell me how one wrong is able to tell the other wrong what to do? Why can the hobby only be destroyed your way.

And Ed can you explain why the Anthropomorphic Allee effect didn't happen with the few morphs of darts we've lost? I think it's only viable with a few hi profile species or morphs and doesn't affect things like tricolor, blue auratus and tincs. We've actually lost those thru the hobby not breeding them anymore. No one went out to collect them out of existence. I don't really think it's viable without figuring out if the variables are there to make it apply to a morph. There is definitely something missing as it doesn't apply to all animals in the hobby, so I don't think it can just be thrown around as proof of anything without further identifying those variables.



Dendro Dave said:


> I think most of us are willing to admit the current situation is less then ideal, but tell us again how 2 wrongs make a right???
> 
> Seems highly likely that a free pass or even tacit approval for hybridization just compounds whatever problems we already have... Yet another reason not keep quiet about it.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

In the wild, herpetology vs. herpetoculture, they are not in the habitat to have alleles be of value for things like pattern in captivity so you can not use a paper from wild animals adapting to their habitat for a model of how they will react in captivity. Per teh paper I posted on tiger salamanders they said they could reduce teh hybrids by drying out the pools as the hybrids only had the upper hand in pools that didn't dry out. How does that trasmit to captivity? We can post papers all day trying to speculate but none will give us proof of anything. 



TarantulaGuy said:


> This is from the abstract of the paper I linked earlier, which no one read, per the usual.
> 
> "Effects on the genetic variability of adjacent populations are only detected at sites located 1.5 km downstream and upstream of the core area, suggesting the existence of selection against hybrids, possibly mediated by postzygotic isolation mechanisms. The contact zone between A. femoralis and A. hodli is the first well delimited suture line between anuran species ever documented in the Brazilian Amazon."
> 
> A paper showing evidence for selection _against_ hybrids, in situ, with dendrobatids. Or are you going to discount this for some obscure reason as well?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Tell me how one wrong is able to tell the other wrong what to do? Why can the hobby only be destroyed your way.


Nice dodge/cop out.... 
I won't argue that we have failed in some respects, but whether we are wrong that hybridization could be harmful to the hobby, is at least up for debate, (obviously).

And we don't actually tell them what to do (at least not all of us), we just tell them we don't like what they are doing and that we want them to stop doing that. You fail to make, and/or just gloss over this distinction, but it's kinda a big one  Even if we do tell them what to do it is still their choice whether to do it or not... again flawed sense of accountability. 

You think we are destroying the hobby? Fine, tell me how a designer dart frog niche saves us and doesn't just compound our existing problems? ...And make me understand how our failures excuse theirs?... Frankly I don't think many here are buying that argument. I don't think many anywhere would buy that argument except maybe in prison, or within a group of politicians or wall street bankers.

Should we just excuse everyone of real crimes because the victims failed to protect themselves? 

*One could argue that even Just laws, and just officers of the law bully us into following the law by making it uncomfortable when we don't... So even if we are being bullies, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong if it serves the greater good. You may not think it does serve the greater good, but the majority, at least the ones who care enough to speak seem to and that is valid. *

Or maybe an argument that hits closer to home.... I guess the MJ crowd got what was coming to them with all those unfair laws, police brutality, questionable actions by the DEA... Yep it was all their fault, not the law's or the individual cops that crapped on their legal and human rights.... They didn't protect themselves well enough, ah to bad. 

Your logic/sense of accountability as you have portrayed it here seems very very flawed I think to the majority of us, even if they could care less about designer frogs. I don't think it would fly with most people outside the hobby either once they really understood that is how you think things are. My guess is you have encountered exactly this difficulty on more then one occasion.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I see so you guys apply the scientific standard to show your inbreeding isn't doing worse for the animals than hybridizing? Must've missed that one. You want to hold standards that you don't hit yourself?

Is it very complex to be able to measure out dust and foods and make sure they are all on par for both groups? You don't have to if you see obvious results consistently. You want to make it so that actual hobbyists don't have any say and that they can never perform scientific type studies. I guess scientific process' weren't divised till there was a peer review process and publishing companies? I didn't say a controlled study I said a scientific study. And you'd be able to do your own and we could see if the outcomes lined up. Some studies have no definitive "better". I think observing frogs is a little easier than working with HIV or cold fusion, but the analogy is noted. Really, HIV and cold fusion is your comparison? Wholly cow. At least hobbyists can redo studies on frogs to see if it's true. 



Calivet said:


> In other words, a controlled study?
> 
> I'm not upping any standard. This IS the standard. I have multiple degrees in the biological sciences and clearly am not the one who "has no clue" as to how science gets advanced. Sitting in your basement going, "yup, looks healthier to me!", then not releasing whatever notes you've taken isn't a study. It isn't knowledge. It's anecdotal at best, and unsubstantiated opinion at worst. People have claimed to have discovered cold fusion, a cure for HIV, and that vaccines definitively cause autism too. Whoops. That's why the studies have to be 1 - RELEASED to the public, and 2 - REPRODUCED. Taking the word of someone who (based on their own voluminous writings on the web) has NO clue how genetics actually works isn't "knowledge".
> 
> ...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> You want to hold standards that you don't hit yourself?


Having standards that not everyone can always meet, including some of the people who believe in the justness of those standards is pretty much the basis for civilization.

(There will always be outliers that can not conform. Sometimes this benefits society, sometimes it doesn't... I see much less benefit from designer frogs, then I do from them not being present).

It is generally accepted throughout civilization that a community is perfectly within it's right to develop a set of standards and Impose sanctions when those standards are not met.... The alternative is anarchy. Is that what you are after?

Personal freedoms come with a cost, and part of that cost is to a degree we have a responsibility to other people. The designer frog crowd wants us to protect their freedom for them, but does nothing to protect ours... Is that just?

I'm still unclear on why you have every right to tell us we are all wrong and we're just supposed to give up and go home, but we have no right to tell you that you are wrong and when we do it makes us bullies???


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So you didn't read teh paper on tiger salamanders or.... It can be fixed and the idea of hybridizing is an event of rapid evolution, the resulting offspring have such diverse genetics after teh first gen that some are bound to be better suited for the local environment. Then you fix said alleles. But in captivity none of those differewnt allelle combinations are the same as in the wild. This paper is for the breakdown of LOCALLY ADAPTED GENES, not about frogs in captivity. It refers specifically to translocating animals in populations, NOT BREEDING THEM IN CAPTIVITY.


Outbreeding depression in the common frog,
Rana temporaria
Jo
̈
rgen Sagvik
l,
*, Tobias Uller
1,2
and Mats Olsson
1,2
1
Department of Zoology, Go
̈
teborg University, Medicinaregatan 18, 405 30 Go
̈
teborg, Sweden;
2
Department
of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia *Corresponding author: Phone: +46
(0) 31 773 36 32; Fax: +46 (0) 31 41 67 29; E-mail: [email protected]
Received 1 June 2004; accepted 11 August 2004
Key words:
amphibian decline, inbreeding, outbreeding,
Rana temporaria
Abstract
Theory suggests that parental relatedness is a continuous variable with a fitness optimum that we here-
toforth will refer to as ‘optimal outbreeding’. In the present paper, we test this proposition from a con-
servation (translocation) perspective. Amphibians are facing a global decline and many amphibian
populations are today small and threatened by extinction. Because genetic differentiation is often high
between amphibian populations, they could be particularly sensitive to outbreeding depression, e.g. due to
breakdown of locally adapted gene complexes. We tested if outbreeding would reduce fitness in common
frogs,
Rana temporaria,
crossed from a large and an isolated, small population, separated by 130 km, using
artificial fertilization. For females from the large population, tadpoles were significantly smaller and more
malformed in crosses with males from the small population, than with males from the large population. For
the small population, however, no significant paternal genetic effects could be found. The difference in
response to outbreeding between populations was accompanied with significant differences in the impor-
tance of maternal effects. We conclude that care should be taken when translocating frogs between distantly
related populations to avoid outbreeding depression. 

at metamorphosis, and ultimately fitness (Altwegg
& Reyer 2003).
Outbreeding depression has been found in rel-
atively few natural animal populations, especially
in intraspecific matings (Alstad & Edmunds 1983;
Brown 1991; Edmands 1999; Marr et al. 2002), but
could be common in taxa such as amphibians that
often show strong genetic differentiation between
populations (Hitchings & Beebee 1997; Newman
& Squire 2001; Lampert et al. 2003; Brede &
Beebee 2004). The current, worldwide decline of
amphibians has led conservationists to propose
translocation of frogs from large (outbred) popu-
lations to isolated, declining populations, to in-
crease their genetic variation (Reinert 1991; Seigel
& Dodd 2002; Trenham & Marsh 2002). As indi-
cated by the present study, such introductions
could potentially lead to reduced fitness, even if
the populations are not separated by more than
some hundred kilometres (and may be much less,
Hitchings & Beebee 1997). Future work should
determine whether the pattern found in the present
study can be repeated with other populations dif-
fering in size and geographic/genetic divergence.

Had no effect in certain pairings.



Ed said:


> He's trying to downplay the following:
> 
> 
> from Sagvik, Jörgen, Tobias Uller, and Mats Olsson. "Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria." Conservation Genetics 6.2 (2005): 205-211. accessed from
> ...


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

So essentially what you're demanding for evidence, and the only evidence you'll accept, is a study on captive population hybrid vigor specific to dendrobatids. Which is a study that doesn't exist. Convenient for you, isn't that.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Models are fun to look at but they are not PROOF to keep people out of the hobby. If you use them as such you don't understand science. Maybe use them to not plan a picnic but to drive out newbies and try and destroy someone's business needs actual proof.



allegedhuman said:


> Can we move beyond claiming in these threads on hybridization that people who oppose hybridization are anti-science or don’t understand how science works? It is clear from these threads that many of us in fact DO know how science works because we work and conduct research in scientific fields.
> 
> I don’t think this should become some macho “Whip out your degrees and lay it on the table to compare qualifications” competition but I feel there is a fairly well educated community that vehemently dispute the claim that “we don’t know how science works” and this should be pretty obvious as we continue to chime out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

There are a LOT of studies that don't exist, more is unknown than known and you are all just using that to justify holding it in place. Seems your "proof" studies don't exist either. 



TarantulaGuy said:


> So essentially what you're demanding for evidence, and the only evidence you'll accept, is a study on captive population hybrid vigor specific to dendrobatids. Which is a study that doesn't exist. Convenient for you,  isn't that.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

My point was that you've narrowed down what you'd consider 'acceptable proof' to be such a ridiculously small concept, that you've made it virtually impossible to fulfill. I know of a few other doctrines that subscribe to this policy too...and none of them are widely accepted in scientific circles either. I linked a paper specifically showing how hybrid dart frogs in the wild are selected against due to having decreased fitness, but you reject it out of hand because it's not a captive population. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be great to see a study about captive dendrobatids, but no one is going to fund that, what's the point except to satiate curious minds in the hobby? If you're not even willing to accept studies on wild dendrobatids as a valid piece of evidence, then what do you base any of your husbandry or knowledge of darts on? I assume that studies showing habitat preference, or diet in teh wild, are total BS because they're wild, and not captive. I don't understand how you dismiss some studies on wild dart frogs out of hand, but not others.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

What is the "goal" of the hobby and who decides it? You classify it as a beginners argument because you just took the reigns of how the hobby should be run. It's not for saving species or having your own personal zoo. It's enjoying frogs, that's what a hobby is. An organization within that hobby would act as a receptacle for the genetics as those goals only apply to a vocal few in the hobby. Science should not be used as a reason to impose your will on others in something such as the dart frog hobby. And if so y'all should've been tracking breeding. As Ed has said before, they aren't any different than an albino parakeet if you aren't breeding them right. 


Ed said:


> Based on what evidence? While many dendrobatids in the wild are able to survive in disturbed habitat, that cannot be taken to mean that they will not go extinct.
> 
> Are you also are aware that a hybrid between species that result in an animal of crossed parentage does not count as "saving" either species ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I didn't say I didn't take it into account and choose myself because of them I said you can't use them to bully other people because of what they do. I use scientific studies all the time to make my decisions but I don't try and force that on other people. Even if it lead to reduced fitness in a study I accepted I'd find a study on reduced fitness in teh way you guys are inbreeding and show you can't use a study to bully people. you can use a study like that to choose not to do it yourself but that's where the line is drawn. People have freedom to do as they choose, esp., when they are doing no more damage than the hobby at large is with their practices.


TarantulaGuy said:


> My point was that you've narrowed down what you'd consider 'acceptable proof' to be such a ridiculously small concept, that you've made it virtually impossible to fulfill. I know of a few other doctrines that subscribe to this policy too...and none of them are widely accepted in scientific circles either. I linked a paper specifically showing how hybrid dart frogs in the wild are selected against due to having decreased fitness, but you reject it out of hand because it's not a captive population. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be great to see a study about captive dendrobatids, but no one is going to fund that, what's the point except to satiate curious minds in the hobby? If you're not even willing to accept studies on wild dendrobatids as a valid piece of evidence, then what do you base any of your husbandry or knowledge of darts on? I assume that studies showing habitat preference, or diet in teh wild, are total BS because they're wild, and not captive. I don't understand how you dismiss some studies on wild dart frogs out of hand, but not others.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Still with the tired bullying argument.  People are being provided with information and opinions to make the informed and responsible decision not to hybridize. No one is imposing anything on anyone or forcing anyone to do anything. 

This is nothing more than a shallow and transparent attempt to demonize and vilify those whom RR disagrees with.


----------



## allegedhuman (Nov 19, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> There are a LOT of studies that don't exist, more is unknown than known and you are all just using that to justify holding it in place. Seems your "proof" studies don't exist either.





Roadrunner said:


> Models are fun to look at but they are not PROOF to keep people out of the hobby. If you use them as such you don't understand science. Maybe use them to not plan a picnic but to drive out newbies and try and destroy someone's business needs actual proof.


If you are looking for “proof” in a biology paper you are in the wrong field or using a different lexicon…

Mathematics has “proofs” while biology has “evidence” and “support”. Everyday conversations with people who say they have proof of something makes you think something is absolute, 100% guaranteed. Biology is not like that. It is much messier, variable and complex than most people like to simplify it as. Even with statistics when biologists try to add a more objective way to measure results, no statistical test “proves” anything, it just means there is a high degree of support for a particular scenario.

When you are calling for papers to PROVE hybrids are better or worse…no paper is going to answer that and I don't think anyone is claiming these papers are "the Proof". Each individual paper provides evidence or support of a particular hypothesis and that is why multiple different papers from different organisms that support the same theory DESPITE their differences is important. With that background we can form a conclusion and design experiments that may be able to support theories and try to confirm or challenge beliefs, but even then to say something is “100% Proof “ is something you’d hear more from a salesperson than a scientist. 



Roadrunner said:


> You never cite ANYTHING that would be a problem with using your papers as proof of something while the scientists who write the papers show more possible problems in the opening statements and say that there needs to be a lot more research done. you are more sure in your paper being proof than the scientist is that it's proof for what it was ACTUALLY designed for.


Science is always ongoing and there is no way we know everything, so yes. Scientists propose lots of follow-up studies to experiments and papers they already did. It is better to understand the possible shortcomings of your experiment and know its limitations instead of act cocky and think your paper answers everything when it is just a small piece in the overall puzzle.



TarantulaGuy said:


> This is from the abstract of the paper I linked earlier, which no one read, per the usual.
> 
> "Effects on the genetic variability of adjacent populations are only detected at sites located 1.5 km downstream and upstream of the core area, suggesting the existence of selection against hybrids, possibly mediated by postzygotic isolation mechanisms. The contact zone between A. femoralis and A. hodli is the first well delimited suture line between anuran species ever documented in the Brazilian Amazon."
> 
> A paper showing evidence for selection _against_ hybrids, in situ, with dendrobatids. Or are you going to discount this for some obscure reason as well?


Submitting papers as "support and evidence" is normal...calling them "the proof" is not.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> I see so you guys apply the scientific standard to show your inbreeding isn't doing worse for the animals than hybridizing? Must've missed that one. You want to hold standards that you don't hit yourself?
> 
> Is it very complex to be able to measure out dust and foods and make sure they are all on par for both groups? You don't have to if you see obvious results consistently. You want to make it so that actual hobbyists don't have any say and that they can never perform scientific type studies. I guess scientific process' weren't divised till there was a peer review process and publishing companies? I didn't say a controlled study I said a scientific study. And you'd be able to do your own and we could see if the outcomes lined up. Some studies have no definitive "better". I think observing frogs is a little easier than working with HIV or cold fusion, but the analogy is noted. Really, HIV and cold fusion is your comparison? Wholly cow. At least hobbyists can redo studies on frogs to see if it's true.


If there aren't strict records kept, in a controlled fashion, and both the methods, materials, and results released to the public, then no, they can't. That's the point. The point of double blinded studies is to remove any level of bias from the equation, and if EVERYTHING isn't the same it just magnifies the possibility of incorrect results, especially when working with a bias (which it's hard not to admit was very present with the "study" we are discussing). 

I didn't say anything about "peer reviewed". What I talked about were the accepted practices in doing "research" properly. Scientific studies that aren't controlled are considered just this side of worthless as far as actually advancing knowledge, because you don't know if the results are valid and/or if the study itself can even be reproduced. When nothing other than "they're healthier!" is released, that's not a study, and it's not knowledge. It's propaganda. 

The reason for bringing up cold fusion and HIV was to point out just how spectacularly and publicly wrong things can go when the studies aren't properly controlled. Those people had everything to lose.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Models are fun to look at but they are not PROOF to keep people out of the hobby. If you use them as such you don't understand science. Maybe use them to not plan a picnic but to drive out newbies and try and destroy someone's business needs actual proof.


*All we need for a good argument against a designer frog niche is reasonable evidence that it presents more risks then rewards. Given the multitude of valid points against it, and so very few for it, I think we have that... *

Also we aren't trying to drive out newbies, in fact part of our argument is based on the difficulties a designer frog niche, and a business with questionable practices could pose for newbies. We are trying to look out for everyone, so that there are at least frogs that most of us on either side will still want, and enjoy. There is nothing wrong with a community having standards, and informing new people of those standards, and disapproving when they tell us to go screw ourselves. 

At least our way there is a hobby that everyone can enjoy, or do some people have to have designer dart frogs if they are going to keep darts and enjoy them period? 

...But if they get their way, it puts our way at risk because some of us will not enjoy hybrids because to us they aren't as close to their wild kin, and they would probably just serve as a reminder of what we lost because the hybrid crowd bullied is into a designer frog niche.

It may be the worst case scenario, but it is possible... Someday if things don't go well hybrids may be all we have if we give them a free pass without an argument. But that's right you believe in a fantasy where if we just say ok go for it, they will all look after our interests and we won't have to worry because we were nice to them... Ya I just see zero evidence that is how it will play out... oh but that's right we have it coming to us because we didn't run the hobby up till now in the most perfect way possible.

I think you are letting your sensitivity towards anything you perceive as possible bullying cloud your judgement, and perspective. Ironic that that sensitivity doesn't actually stop you from using all the same tactics 

.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Oh lordy. It's just not worth engaging on this. But I seem to just keep on doing it. I'm a glutton I guess. For the record Ed is right I messed up my definitions. I was thinking of the jeopardy definition. My bad. I'll own that mistake. But I'll say again and I don't care if Ed or anyone else believes me or not. To hybridize or not isn't my issue. I simply don't care what breeding someone else does or doesn't do with the frogs they own.



Dendro Dave said:


> Ok can we address the fact that we don't actually stop anyone from doing this stuff???
> 
> What we do is vocalize that we don't like it. If someone stops doing it, then that person stopped themselves, and that's on them. Again I see a flawed sense of accountability.


I would be perfectly ok if the above was the extent of the argument. Even if someone just said I don't like it cause i don't like it. I would be ok with that. Not the best argument, but it's someone's opinion and I'm not trying to tell someone else what they have to believe. 

Where I have issue is when people present an opinion as a fact. In this case, it's the presentation of literature on outbreeding depression on some organisms as evidence it is an issue with dart frogs. That's where my problem is. There is literature that supports a hypothesis that mixing species (or maybe even the same species but different populations) could be a problem in dart frogs. I agree with that. But that's as far as it can be taken based on evidence. We can't say there is a problem and that's why you shouldn't do it. We could only go there if we took it to the next step. The next step being to study it. Then draw some conclusions based on the outcome of that study. 

At the end of the day. I really just like looking at my frogs.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tardis101 said:


> Oh lordy. It's just not worth engaging on this. But I seem to just keep on doing it. I'm a glutton I guess. For the record Ed is right I messed up my definitions. I was thinking of the jeopardy definition. My bad. I'll own that mistake. But I'll say again and I don't care if Ed or anyone else believes me or not. To hybridize or not isn't my issue. I simply don't care what breeding someone else does or doesn't do with the frogs they own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At times we (including me) might have made it sound to much like "it's a fact it hurts frogs", I'll concede that much...

But the intention I think most of us have, and have done reasonably well communicating is that we see a potential risk, many potential risks of different varieties in fact, and have some evidence those risks do exist, and/or can be reasonably inferred to exist. 

We see almost no benefit to the animal and the majority of people in the hobby, at least the ones who care enough to speak up, and the other side has presented us with very little evidence we will benefit from the designer frog niche...

They've presented no evidence that I can recall that the designer frog crowd will look after our interests, yet they expect us to look after their's: Well in a way we are, and have been. We are in large part the reason why the raw material for their designer frog experiments exists in the hobby... What have they done for us?

So...
*It's a simple matter of risk vs reward. We get most if not all the risk and they get most if not all the reward*... So based on available evidence it doesn't make much sense to open the flood gates on designer frogs by giving open or even tacit approval... and we don't actually stop them from doing what they want, but we also don't have to like it or make it super comfortable for them... *after all they are making things super uncomfortable for many of us*. Again, why do they have this right and we don't???

...I don't get why they are more entitled then us, especially since their practices may actually pose a risk to the frogs and infringe on my right to enjoy a hobby centered around non designer dart frogs; while ours probably insures there are at least some frogs that everyone interested in dart frogs can enjoy. Maybe our practices are imperfect and contain their own risks: well ok then... Seems like even less of a good idea to pile on even more risk by adding a designer frog niche, doesn't it


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I recently stumbled across this and I think it mirrors our situation here to a fair degree. Also worth some attention in it's own right...








https://www.change.org/p/president-...erm=des-lg-action_alert-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

So we have all these tourists that wanna see the turtles, and I bet a few of them at least realized that all these people are probably stressing out the turtles and it isn't a good situation and said something about it. But...

People just wanted to see the turtles and didn't know/understand what harm they might be doing (or didn't care), so they sat their kids on the turtle's back and probably poo poo'd the people who did say something.

I'm sure the majority of people there probably walked away thinking they had just had a rewarding experience with the wildlife... but not everyone was quite that ignorant I assume, and I doubt the turtles enjoyed it either... but people wanted what they wanted and they justified it to themselves at the turtles and other people's expense. Maybe if/when they were ushered off the beach finally by authorities they felt they had just been bullied

Sure the people who realized it was not an ideal situation may have had some selfish desires at play because they cared about the turtles, and maybe they were also a part of a larger problem, and maybe the turtles were even being selfish... but still it was a situation that very likely presented more risk then reward... and I think that is what we have here. 

People are insisting they get their way without any discomfort or complaint, while everyone else and quite possibly the animals suffer for it. And yes I'll concede that the designer crowd is suffering also, but *in the end who's suffering serves the greater good???*


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> Where I have issue is when people present an opinion as a fact. In this case, it's the presentation of literature on outbreeding depression on some organisms as evidence it is an issue with dart frogs. That's where my problem is. There is literature that supports a hypothesis that mixing species (or maybe even the same species but different populations) could be a problem in dart frogs. I agree with that. But that's as far as it can be taken based on evidence. We can't say there is a problem and that's why you shouldn't do it. We could only go there if we took it to the next step. The next step being to study it. Then draw some conclusions based on the outcome of that study.


So produce a peer reviewed study that says that it isn't applicable. 

Based on your argument you cannot make the claim that it can't be applied without a study demonstrating that to be true. Your position is one where neither position is acceptable as it is self-contradicting. In other words, its a case of double standard and hypocrisy as we can see by applying that simple statement to routine practices that impact multiple taxa including humans. 

So in other words anytime a new chemical or product is detected as mutagenic or carcinogenic via tests on rodents, we must test the results on people as otherwise the study isn't applicable. to people ... 

All of the information that we know about nutritional requirements of dendrobatids is incorrect because we haven't tested out the models on each and every species of dart frog. 

The prescription of medications for use in dendrobatids is incorrect as in virtually all of the cases there are not any studies on efficacy. Vets simply extrapolate a dosage based on how it works in dogs or cats (as an example that is how enrofloxin made the jump to use in amphibians). 

We shouldn't be using animal models to study arthritis in people. 

The fact that other frogs have been shown to utilize evaporative cooling to mitigate heat gain so dart frogs can't be expected to be able to engage in this sort of metabolic exercise. 

OR we shouldn't be using other taxa ranging from nematodes to fruit flies to rodents to study how genes work in humans and other animals. 

The sheer claim that it can't be used a evidence is ridiculous in the face of just how many of those kinds of studies that you say cannot be applied without a direct study as used to do exactly that and are well accepted by the scientific community. 

Some claims 

Ed


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> I would be perfectly ok if the above was the extent of the argument. Even if someone just said I don't like it cause i don't like it. I would be ok with that. Not the best argument, but it's someone's opinion and I'm not trying to tell someone else what they have to believe.
> 
> Where I have issue is when people present an opinion as a fact. In this case, it's the presentation of literature on outbreeding depression on some organisms as evidence it is an issue with dart frogs. That's where my problem is. There is literature that supports a hypothesis that mixing species (or maybe even the same species but different populations) could be a problem in dart frogs. I agree with that. But that's as far as it can be taken based on evidence. We can't say there is a problem and that's why you shouldn't do it. We could only go there if we took it to the next step. The next step being to study it. Then draw some conclusions based on the outcome of that study.
> 
> At the end of the day. I really just like looking at my frogs.


 I almost completely agree with you here. You are right, we don't know FOR A FACT, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, that hybridizing will have negative effects. For me it is more of an ethical thing. There is plenty of evidence out there to support that hypothesis, therefore, with no clear benefits to hybridizing, I see no point in doing it. And I actually do care what people do with their animals, but I also realize that people will continue to do what they want regardless of what I say. And that's their choice. That's just my opinion. But I think that most of the arguments that occur on this forum have more to do with people disputing the evidence presented against hybridizing, in which case I think it is alright for people to voice their opinion. 

And maybe some are too quick to present it as fact, but I also think that there is more scientific basis to this than people give it credit for. This is not a random opinion formulated to push an agenda, but a real possibility that does indeed concern us. Many peer reviewed papers and studies have been published that support this. So you must see where we, as passionate as we are about these animals, we would be concerned, right? In addition, as stated by Ed, many scientists utilize results from other studies and apply them to other things. Thus, the evidence presented should certainly be applicable as well.

However, at the end of the day, people will do what they want. And that's their choice. And in all honesty, I just want to enjoy my frogs as well! I enjoy debating and discussing things, so I do like to participate in discussion whenever this topic comes up. But, I also want everyone here to keep it civil, and use our common interest as a means to unite as a community and a hobby.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Roadrunner said:


> Even if it lead to reduced fitness in a study I accepted I'd find a study on reduced fitness in teh way you guys are inbreeding and show you can't use a study to bully people. you can use a study like that to choose not to do it yourself but that's where the line is drawn. People have freedom to do as they choose, esp., when they are doing no more damage than the hobby at large is with their practices.


Presenting information isn't in any way bullying. If that was the case then we shouldn't have suggestions on housing or feeding or breeding or anything else that involved presenting information. 

Your conflating the presentation of information with bullying. Under your criteria, your engaging in bullying. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> I almost completely agree with you here. You are right, we don't know FOR A FACT, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, that hybridizing will have negative effects. For me it is more of an ethical thing.


See I'm ok with that too. You think it's unethical. That's fair. It's your call and I respect that. 



brendan0923 said:


> And maybe some are too quick to present it as fact, but I also think that there is more scientific basis to this than people give it credit for. This is not a random opinion formulated to push an agenda, but a real possibility that does indeed concern us. Many peer reviewed papers and studies have been published that support this. So you must see where we, as passionate as we are about these animals, we would be concerned, right? In addition, as stated by Ed, many scientists utilize results from other studies and apply them to other things. Thus, the evidence presented should certainly be applicable as well.


But the above is where I have the problem. Mixing factual evidence with hypotheticals and drawing conclusions. This makes it look like the science is there to support the conclusion. It's not. If you'd just left it at ethical or that you just don't like it, I'd be right there with you. The evidence out there supports a hypothesis but not a conclusion. But now I'm talking in circles. Which is where this whole discussion seems to always end up.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> Presenting information isn't in any way bullying. If that was the case then we shouldn't have suggestions on housing or feeding or breeding or anything else that involved presenting information.
> 
> Your conflating the presentation of information with bullying. Under your criteria, your engaging in bullying.
> 
> ...


That's a complete crock of BS. Information is not just being presented. It's being processed and a ready made conclusion drawn. Then it's being stated as if it were a fact surrounded by fancy terminology to lend more weight to it than it deserves. Then when someone doesn't agree with it, their credentials are questioned, their relative newness to the hobby is discussed, and they are generally bad mouthed. Those are characteristics of a bully.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

tardis101 said:


> See I'm ok with that too. You think it's unethical. That's fair. It's your call and I respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> But the above is where I have the problem. Mixing factual evidence with hypotheticals and drawing conclusions. This makes it look like the science is there to support the conclusion. It's not. If you'd just left it at ethical or that you just don't like it, I'd be right there with you. The evidence out there supports a hypothesis but not a conclusion. But now I'm talking in circles. Which is where this whole discussion seems to always end up.


If we didn't form a conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence then where do we? At "absolute proof"??? ...Which I think most here realize we can never get in science... or in life. We could argue the philosophies dealing with objective truth vs subjective truth, but that is an even longer thread. Do we have enough evidence to qualify as a "preponderance" of evidence that it is bad? Maybe not... Do we have enough to conclude it seems to be more risk then it is worth to the majority? ...Ya, I think we got that far 4 pages and several threads ago. 

You are attempting to draw a very fine line, and I get the argument you are trying to make, but you are suffering from the same failures that we are in that you don't always quite draw the line in the same place, or at least effectively communicate your intention/where the line should be drawn.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Roadrunner said:


> What is the "goal" of the hobby and who decides it? You classify it as a beginners argument because you just took the reigns of how the hobby should be run.


Umm... no. Last I checked, I have no ability to move threads so you really can't make that claim. 

So what your saying is that by presenting information to the hobby I'm somehow automatically dictating how the hobby is run? So what your saying is that I'm actually doing harm to the hobby by discussing carotenoid metabolism and pigment, or that we should try to keep the frogs around for the long haul, or that people should get what they like... So I'm guessing all of those things are bad then right? 




Roadrunner said:


> It's not for saving species or having your own personal zoo. It's enjoying frogs, that's what a hobby is. An organization within that hobby would act as a receptacle for the genetics as those goals only apply to a vocal few in the hobby. Science should not be used as a reason to impose your will on others in something such as the dart frog hobby. And if so y'all should've been tracking breeding. As Ed has said before, they aren't any different than an albino parakeet if you aren't breeding them right.


I wish you would get that quote right for once as you have consistently failed to not only get it right but have totally skipped the context. from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/48928-suppliers-wild-caught-frogs-2.html 




> Personally I think you can't get away from selecting for survivial in captivity (see above) but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't be attempting to keep a frog that is as close as possible to the population it originated from at the time of collection. Nor are the two incompatiable. Otherwise then all we eventually end up keeping is the frog equivalent of the fancy guppy or the albino parakeet.


which you somehow translated to


Roadrunner said:


> I see you left out the useless as an albino parakeet part. So basically your saying it's useless to work w/ terribilis in the long term from lack of genetic diversity(1 pair) because there is no hope for a frog line that comes from 1 pair? Basically I have to find something else to do for"value to conservation" or rely on a whole bunch of other people to be around long term? Basically there's nothing I can do myself but breed frogs and put them in a program and hope for the best?


 from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/60605-patternless-blue-auratus-6.html 

So its not quite the claim your making it out to be... I was arguing that if we want to maintain frogs that at least look like the wild type frogs, with the maximal amount of possible genetic variation (such as the major histocompatability complex immune function) the frogs should be managed. You decided that meant that because terribilis had a small founding population I was saying they were doomed despite my continual reference that small populations can be managed for close to the genetic diversity available at the time the management started. I even repeatedly referenced examples of where this was success with small founder populations (like say 13 animals in one case). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> That's a complete crock of BS. Information is not just being presented. It's being processed and a ready made conclusion drawn. Then it's being stated as if it were a fact surrounded by fancy terminology to lend more weight to it than it deserves. Then when someone doesn't agree with it, their credentials are questioned, their relative newness to the hobby is discussed, and they are generally bad mouthed. Those are characteristics of a bully.


No someone gets their credentials questioned when they continually make mistakes with things they should know well enough to not make those mistakes and then behaves in a manner that is pretty indicative of trolling ... so that is what gets your knowledge called into question. 

In addition, your continual attempt to flaunt credentials which by your own statements are inadmissible to the discussion. also raises doubt. 

*So back to the discussion at hand. Can your provide a peer reviewed study in dendrobatids that proves we are advocating an incorrect position? Othewise your argument to date self-implodes. * 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> But the above is where I have the problem. Mixing factual evidence with hypotheticals and drawing conclusions. This makes it look like the science is there to support the conclusion. It's not. If you'd just left it at ethical or that you just don't like it, I'd be right there with you. The evidence out there supports a hypothesis but not a conclusion. But now I'm talking in circles. Which is where this whole discussion seems to always end up.


So we can't use the Ames test right? Or any of the other cross taxa applications or models without having them tested specifically for that incidence. So the information that was learned on traumatic bullet woulds in animals studies are being incorrectly (which is also unethical in science) applied to treating people?? 

Your position is at odd with scientific models and the usage of data learned in other taxa directly on other taxa. 

How about the peer reviewed citations that show we are incorrectly applying it to dart frogs? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> No someone gets their credentials questioned when they continually make mistakes with things they should know well enough to not make those mistakes and then behaves in a manner that is pretty indicative of trolling ... so that is what gets your knowledge called into question.
> 
> In addition, your continual attempt to flaunt credentials which by your own statements are inadmissible to the discussion. also raises doubt.
> 
> ...


Perfect example of what I said. You just made a personal attack. 

And yet again you present a fallacy in trying to shift the burden of proof. My argument doesn't self implode at all. Because, as you continue to ignore, I'm not making an argument for one conclusion or another. 

- Mike


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

You might want to look into the literature a little deeper on the tiger salamanders. 

Johnson, Jarrett R., Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick, and H. Bradley Shaffer. "Retention of low-fitness genotypes over six decades of admixture between native and introduced tiger salamanders." BMC evolutionary biology 10.1 (2010): 147.



Roadrunner said:


> So you didn't read teh paper on tiger salamanders or....
> Had no effect in certain pairings.


And attempting to argue that what happens with viability in wild populations isn't valid in captive populations is not a great argument. You do realize that those models were developed using captive animals right?? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> Perfect example of what I said. You just made a personal attack.
> 
> And yet again you present a fallacy in trying to shift the burden of proof. My argument doesn't self implode at all. Because, as you continue to ignore, I'm not making an argument for one conclusion or another.
> 
> - Mike


Actually you made personal attacks as well but in your case it appears to be an attempt to misdirect the continual attempt to utilize an argument that is contradictory and hypocritical. 

Are you able to meet your criteria in that it has to be a peer reviewed study of dendrobatids to disprove the application of other animal models to dendrobatids? 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Roadrunner said:


> When did you guys prove inbreeding was superior? Your wild type obsession is what drives collecting from the wild. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. YOU are the ones who drive the smuggling and ideology. I don't understand basic science design process'? I'm not the one using papers about other animals to "prove" anything. When that is done it's not to prove anything it's to set up an actual paper to test the theory. There is no argument that hybridizing is "better" than not. Just that it isn't any worse than inbreeding and the way you guys manage the hobby currently. ALthough there is a term hybrid vigor that shows there is a chance. There are NO papers on darts and even if there was 1 it takes 3 to make a trend so one paper means nothing without a body of literature.


Aaron, you do realize that while inbreeding isn't considered superior it is considered better than outbreeding right? The reason is that if the population is managed the by extending the generational time inbreeding can be reduced to a minimum. However once you outcross, the benefit lasts for one generation while the negative effects last multiple generations. I've posted a reference that goes over it pretty well repeatedly. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> Perfect example of what I said. You just made a personal attack.
> 
> And yet again you present a fallacy in trying to shift the burden of proof. My argument doesn't self implode at all. Because, as you continue to ignore, I'm not making an argument for one conclusion or another.
> 
> - Mike


Of course you are. You're dissecting and refuting only one point of view. If you were truly neutral you'd be training the same degree of skepticism towards both camps. Making an argument against only one point of view has the net effect of supporting the other.


----------



## Calivet (Aug 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> Again, do YOU know these things? Great so now you're saying we may be able to transport a novel pathogen from our collection back to Peru? You know most morphs of darts are NOT endangered? They may be listed on cites but their populations are fine. Some of them even thrive in human presence. A "store" of genetics is not needed, only a representation of what actually occurs in teh wild. And since they are no longer in the wild they no longer need all teh genes you want to save. Just let them evolve to our tanks. Do people still take wolves from teh wild? Their genetics don't make them the best representative for a pet, there is a reason for that. Dart frogs should also be allowed to be chosen for their thriving in captivity. If hybrids make for better pets then anyone who just wants a pet should be able to have one. It's not up to you to MAKE someone be a receptacle for your genetics.


I don't have to know those things, I'm not the one making dogmatic statements about there being absolutely no difference between hybrids and pet frogs. The person making those statements needs to know thise things, and to have data proving it beyond a reasonable doubt to make a statement THAT dogmatic. I CAN definitively say that the presence of WC frogs in captivity makes it an unsupportable argument however. Feel free to create a cogent argument that proves that the genetics of the WC frogs in captivity is somehow deficient to the wild population if you wish. I think you'll find you'll need to answer the same questions I asked to do so though. 

Amphibians aren't mammals, and a few generations of breeding frogs doesn't remotely compare to thousands of years of canine domestication, that's a pretty thin argument. And yes, some people do actually keep wolves. 

Define "most", and identify which species you're ok with losing. Provide references that refute that species are being lost. I do think it's funny that I'm getting one argument claiming that you only need a representative sample of the wild while another says that captive populations do that no better than hybrids do (not at all). 

Strong comments on your part. I do not know the answers to those questions, and neither do you. I'm not acting like I do though. I'm taking a "do no harm" approach. If you're going to claim hybrids make better pets, you really need to find a source that proves that they actually make better pets. Or, as I stated to begin this entire back and forth - put your money where your mouth is and do it yourself. 

I haven't tried to force anyone to do anything. I've called people out for inconsistent arguments, faulty logic, and a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method, and stated what I feel is an ethical position regarding animal husbandry, and said I won't take "nuh-uh!" as a valid argument against that position. YMMV.


----------



## rigel10 (Jun 1, 2012)

I wonder two things: 1. What is the meaning of this controversy: now we want to legitimize the hybridization? 2. why Roadrunner intervenes only in this thread?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

wrong post


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

tardis101 said:


> Oh lordy. It's just not worth engaging on this. But I seem to just keep on doing it. I'm a glutton I guess. For the record Ed is right I messed up my definitions. I was thinking of the jeopardy definition.


Actually that isn't true, there isn't a definition of extinct in the ESA Consultation Handbook for Section 7 (Jeopardy section) of the ESA. The closest that comes is the following defintion


> Endangered species - any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
> significant portion of its range. [ESA §3(6)]


 Nowhere does it say that and I'm quoting you 



tardis101 said:


> The US Endangered Species Act defines what extinction means, and it means from the wild. That doesn't mean there are any in hatcheries or zoos or what not but it means there aren't any in the wild. I suppose folks can not like that definition and use another, but that's what the ESA says.


So why did you as "an endangered species biologist who works with USFW (by your own claim) not only get the definition wrong but you then claimed it was defined that way in another section of the ESA? Did you think that other people haven't read that handbook or that it was unlikely that someone would double check claims that are suspicious? 

So what's the explanation this time? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Not much time but I'll take this one. When you get a scientist to denigrate there ways by writing a letter OTHER than to desist using their interpretation of a scietists book, it's bullying, when you shut them out of an outlet to sell frogs, it's bullying, when you say you'll show up at reptile shows to "confront" them it's bullying, when you tell everyone who buys any of their frogs that they made a big mistake, when you say they are destroying "the hobby"(not destroying the hobby FOR U because of your narrow definition of the hobby), you are forcing your will on others. When you try and brainwash every frogger that starts to ask about hybrids and say NO in big letters, it's bullying.

And NO, I'm standing up for the rights of others who are being bullied. I'm not even arguing for anything I want to do, only arguing others have the right to do so without being outcast. I never said you had to create hybrids or buy them. I'm only sticking up for others rights and rejecting bad logic.



Ed said:


> Presenting information isn't in any way bullying. If that was the case then we shouldn't have suggestions on housing or feeding or breeding or anything else that involved presenting information.
> 
> Your conflating the presentation of information with bullying. Under your criteria, your engaging in bullying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, that's them enjoying the hobby in their own way. You again act like you own the hobby. Did they go to any pet shops and tell them the "hobby" doesn't like inbred frogs? They go top shows and tell everyone around your table how you inbreed and create unhealthy frogs?


Dendro Dave said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *You want an example of bullying??? Here it is...*
> 
> When a minority shoves designer frogs down our throat after vocal opposition to the point where we practically begged them not to do it, but since *WE COULDN'T ACTUALLY STOP THEM*, they did it anyways and now we all have to deal with the consequences.... *THAT'S BULLYING*.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> when you shut them out of an outlet to sell frogs, it's bullying, when you say you'll show up at reptile shows to "confront" them it's bullying, when you tell everyone who buys any of their frogs that they made a big mistake, when you say they are destroying "the hobby"(not destroying the hobby FOR U because of your narrow definition of the hobby), you are forcing your will on others. When you try and brainwash every frogger that starts to ask about hybrids and say NO in big letters, it's bullying.


I think you're mistaking bullying for capitalism. And people are free to make up their own minds. If, after we present our views and our evidence supporting those views, and they choose to agree with us, then that's their choice. We can't make them have an opinion, that's just an asinine statement trying to distract from the issue at hand. Enough with the bully talk, it's not contributing anything healthy to this debate.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So physically showing up to shows to confront them isn't bullying? Talking to their distributor and getting them to not sell their frogs? Mocking their religion? Saying they should've saved the money so their kids could learn actual; scsience? How many times was this that thread closed because of getting out of control. The longest BS thread in the history of DB and it wasn't bullying? telling them to kill any hybrids? We seem to forget what has been stricken from the record


ZookeeperDoug said:


> Unfortunately by now the answer to this question has become exceedingly obvious to the rest of us. It's frustrating really.
> 
> Also, you can quit with the bellyaching about bullying. No one is bullying anyone. You playing that card is really an insult to people who have had to deal with or deal with real issues of bullying everyday. You attempting to use that as an ad hom against those whom you disagree with here is insulting to them. it only makes you look bad.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Then you shouldn't be using models of support(not even support) to try and put someone out of business.



allegedhuman said:


> If you are looking for “proof” in a biology paper you are in the wrong field or using a different lexicon…
> 
> Mathematics has “proofs” while biology has “evidence” and “support”. Everyday conversations with people who say they have proof of something makes you think something is absolute, 100% guaranteed. Biology is not like that. It is much messier, variable and complex than most people like to simplify it as. Even with statistics when biologists try to add a more objective way to measure results, no statistical test “proves” anything, it just means there is a high degree of support for a particular scenario.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Not much time but I'll take this one. When you get a scientist to denigrate there ways by writing a letter OTHER than to desist using their interpretation of a scientist's book, it's bullying, when you shut them out of an outlet to sell frogs, it's bullying, when you say you'll show up at reptile shows to "confront" them it's bullying, when you tell everyone who buys any of their frogs that they made a big mistake, when you say they are destroying "the hobby"(not destroying the hobby FOR U because of your narrow definition of the hobby), you are forcing your will on others. When you try and brainwash every frogger that starts to ask about hybrids and say NO in big letters, it's bullying.


Ok you had a valid point back when you said a few people took things to far. But people have the right to question a vendor at a show about their business practices and the products they sell. That scientist was just exercising the same right that you are now when you say you don't like what you see going on. They removed themselves from the forums, they weren't kicked off... It was their choice to remove themselves from this avenue of sales.

I and others here are not forcing our will on others, we are just communicating that we don't like what they are doing, and IF i don't like what someone is doing I don't have to buy frogs from them, or say nice things about them and be their best friend. I have every right to give my opinion on them and their frogs and try to persuade others to my line of thinking. If I'm successful and other people don't buy from them or speak out against them that is those people's choice, and it was the designer frog vendor's choice to go against the grain and piss off the community and reap the consequences... again your sense of personal accountability is flawed.

I said that what they do puts the hobby we enjoy at risk, because they will use some of the frogs we have now to create their designer frogs and that will effectively remove those frogs from the mainstream hobby because so many people will consider those frogs and the people that deal in them as tainted. That will mean less genetic diversity within the captive population the mainstream hobby works with and most likely will lead to fewer viable breeding frogs, and potential health issue. That effects us, their "enjoyment" puts ours and the frogs continued existence in jeopardy.

You seriously believe a community doesn't have a right to adopt a set of standards and try to get other people to respect those standards? 




Roadrunner said:


> And NO, I'm standing up for the rights of others who are being bullied. I'm not even arguing for anything I want to do, only arguing others have the right to do so without being outcast. I never said you had to create hybrids or buy them. I'm only sticking up for others rights and rejecting bad logic.


What they do can effect us, and it boggles my mind that you can't see that and understand that because they don't exist in a vacuum, that none of us do, that everyone including you and them has the right to stand up for their belief. Basically you've said that everything we've said and done constitutes bullying.... well *the only other option you left us is silence*. Seriously no one can ever say they don't approve of anything and try to persuade others to their cause  ...I think you are so biased with this anti bullying sentiment that you don't see, or understand the implications of what you say/do.* Follow your own logic to its natural ends and I think you'll be shocked at where you end up...and how alone you are when you get there. *

If we follow your logic/belief then no laws can be made or enforced because it would be bullying. No protests, or boycotts can occur because it would be bullying, no one would be allowed to speak their mind and try to persuade others to their cause because it would be bullying... But by your own logic the blame would go to the people who didn't protect themselves from the bullies, like when we didn't all adopt frog tracking and now it is our fault this is happening and we deserve it. You said it a bit differently, but that was the implication of the argument in it's various forms you have made repeatedly.... again you don't seem to understand the implications of your own argument, nor do you seem to have a consistent and pragmatic sense of accountability. 



Roadrunner said:


> No, that's them enjoying the hobby in their own way. You again act like you own the hobby. Did they go to any pet shops and tell them the "hobby" doesn't like inbred frogs? They go top shows and tell everyone around your table how you inbreed and create unhealthy frogs?


Well us speaking out against designer frogs and trying to persuade others not to go down that path or let it pass unchallenged is us enjoying the hobby our way. By your own logic that should mean that what we are doing here won't effect them in anyways and well if that is the case why are you so pissed off ...What we say and do shouldn't be effecting you at all Aaron, but apparently it is. So again your logic is flawed, and your argument collapses in on itself. 



TarantulaGuy said:


> I think you're mistaking bullying for capitalism. And people are free to make up their own minds. If, after we present our views and our evidence supporting those views, and they choose to agree with us, then that's their choice. We can't make them have an opinion, that's just an asinine statement trying to distract from the issue at hand. Enough with the bully talk, it's not contributing anything healthy to this debate.


He sees it everywhere... We are all just expected to be silent whenever we see something we don't like. No one is accountable to anyone else. In Aarons world anyone can do anything because nothing anyone does can possibly effect anyone else, yet somehow Aaron is effected, we are effected, and the designer frog crowd is effected... but despite all the evidence to the contrary we are suppose to buy into his warped logic and except his argument to the contrary as fact. 

Only Aaron can stand up for what he believes in and for other people. When we do it, well that's bullying... When Aaron does all the same stuff it is noble. Everyone is accountable to Aaron, but Aaron is accountable to no one.... funny how that works, kinda like how the designer frog crowd expects us to look after their interests, but has said nothing about how they plan to look after ours.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> So physically showing up to shows to confront them isn't bullying?


To the best of my knowledge, this never actually happened. The answer would depend on what actually transpired. Entirely hypothetical, so no, not bullying.



> Talking to their distributor and getting them to not sell their frogs?


Glad that distributor made the right call. I never talked to them, again, dunno what was said, but based on their response, sounds like they made the decision on their own.



> Mocking their religion?


Can I touch this one mods or is it off limits here too?



> Saying they should've saved the money so their kids could learn actual; scsience?


An accurate statement, they probably should have.



> How many times was this that thread closed because of getting out of control.


Quite a few times thanks to your own laughable contributions, but then we know that you've wanted it locked for a while and we're doing everything you could to get it locked, thankfully the mods are smarter than that.



> The longest BS thread in the history of DB and it wasn't bullying? telling them to kill any hybrids? We seem to forget what has been stricken from the record


Nope, not at all. Get over it Arron, no matter how much you hyperventilate about it and try to sell it, your claim of bullying is just laughable drivel on your part. Just sour grapes on your part, and yes, it is THAT, transparent. It's good for a laugh though, so by all means, continue to sound like a broken record.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> Then you shouldn't be using models of support(not even support) to try and put someone out of business.


And that isn't what is happening here. Quit derailing the thread with nonsense about that company you so love to defend. This thread isn't about them.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Roadrunner said:


> Not much time but I'll take this one. When you get a scientist to denigrate there ways by writing a letter OTHER than to desist using their interpretation of a scietists book, it's bullying, .


For the record, lest we allow more disinformation from RR to fester, this is not at all what happened.

De. Lötters took it upon himself to defend his intellectual property against the misuse by a certain company and defend his reputation. For that he was libeled and defamed by said company. If anything it was him who was bullied. Ironicly, you have never criticized them for that. Quit being a hypocrite.

It's obvious that you want to make this about That company, you're intentionally trying to derail this thread to get it locked. It's obvious you want to continue crusading on about that company. I suggest you go revive that thread since you're so desperate to still talk about them. Everybody else has since moved on LONG ago. Time for you to get over it too.


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

*Please keep it civil and on topic.*​
Leave other dreadful threads out of this one.


----------



## toostrange (Sep 19, 2013)

The thing I'm trying soooo hard to understand, is why someone would look for hybrid support here. There are so many other outlets that would be more open to this, but still feel the need for acceptance here. Why? I just find it very strange. It's not that anyone can stop anyone from doing what they want with their frogs. That much is obvious. So why the need to have everyone here say cool? The majority of the people here feel that it's not a good thing. Why do people try so hard to convince us otherwise? At the end of the day you have been presented with enough evidence to say it's not the best thing. So again I come back to why, and all I really hear is because I can. There is no high ground you can stand on. There is no other reason than because you want to.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> Actually that isn't true, there isn't a definition of extinct in the ESA Consultation Handbook for Section 7 (Jeopardy section) of the ESA. The closest that comes is the following defintion Nowhere does it say that and I'm quoting you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually what I said above about what I was thinking is true. I didn't say it was defined another way. I simply said I was thinking of jeopardy. The Service's jeopardy analysis includes the concept of precluding recovery. The Section 7 Handbook isn't the ESA. It's a policy/guidance document written to interpret the ESA. There are many places the handbook is wrong. The section 10 handbook is the same way. I'm not a biologist who works with the USFWS I am a biologist who works for the Service.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> For the record, lest we allow more disinformation from RR to fester, this is not at all what happened.
> 
> De. Lötters took it upon himself to defend his intellectual property against the misuse by a certain company and defend his reputation.


So are you suggesting you had nothing to do with it? In response to this statement:


Boondoggle said:


> You know what this thread really needs? A comment from Lotters, that's what.


you responded with this:


ZookeeperDoug said:


> That will be happening, soon, I can gaurantee you that. Just got the word last night. But, Lötters has extended an even better offer.


Also this


ZookeeperDoug said:


> Ambassador to Lotters, but otherwise I'm pretty sure I'm just an A-hole.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> Are you able to meet your criteria in that it has to be a peer reviewed study of dendrobatids to disprove the application of other animal models to dendrobatids?
> 
> 
> Some comments
> ...


Yet another deflection attempt. You are making frequent use of the onus probandi fallacy. For folks unfamiliar with logic fallacies, I thought I'd better provide a link explaining what it is. You can read about this one here:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

or here: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> Yet another deflection attempt. You are making frequent use of the onus probandi fallacy. For folks unfamiliar with logic fallacies, I thought I'd better provide a link explaining what it is. You can read about this one here:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that you get to make outlandish claims that hybrids won't hurt the hobby, but you don't have to show a single piece of evidence to support that claim? Please.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> So are you suggesting you had nothing to do with it? In response to this statement:
> 
> 
> you responded with this:
> ...


What part of this:




JPccusa said:


> *Please keep it civil and on topic.*​
> Leave other dreadful threads out of this one.


Do you not understand?


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> Yet another deflection attempt. You are making frequent use of the onus probandi fallacy. For folks unfamiliar with logic fallacies, I thought I'd better provide a link explaining what it is. You can read about this one here:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
> 
> ...


Here is a challenge for you, apply a list of logical fallacies to yourself and ask yourself how many you're guilty of eh? Without even looking I can think of 5 off the top of my head, you don't want to play this game.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> So what you're saying is that you get to make outlandish claims that hybrids won't hurt the hobby, but you don't have to show a single piece of evidence to support that claim? Please.


No that's not what I'm saying. I've said several times I'm not advocating a position, but some people continue to fail to understand. Again, 



tardis101 said:


> I didn't say it is a reason to cross frogs. I am however saying it's not an argument not to.


and again



tardis101 said:


> AGAIN you are trying to confuse the points being made and you and several others continue to post misinformation. I have not said hybridizing is "good." What I have said (over and over) is that the information presented does not support the conclusion that a hybrid is "bad". Ed's "massive amount of literature" does not support the opinion being put forward. Most of what has been posted isn't on frogs let alone on dart frogs. The one pivital paper being pointed to over and over is about a hermaphrodite nematode. Your end point is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the other side (which is fallacy btw). I don't see anyone trying to prove a hybrid is "good." The OP is asking essentially why is bad.


one more time for good measure



tardis101 said:


> Ultimately I don't actually have a personal opinion on hybrids, other than I don't want one, so I don't buy them.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> No that's not what I'm saying. I've said several times I'm not advocating a position, but some people continue to fail to understand that or you just don't care. Again,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

We might believe you if you applied the same microscope to the other side of the arguement as well, but you don't.

It's like the guy that claims to be a libertarian, but only complains about democrats and ignores republicans. You know he's a closet R, just doesn't want to deal with the criticism for that. Could easily go the other way.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
> 
> We might believe you if you applied the same microscope to the other side of the arguement as well, but you don't.
> 
> It's like the guy that claims to be a libertarian, but only complains about democrats and ignores republicans. You know he's a closet R, just doesn't want to deal with the criticism for that. Could easily go the other way.


I'm in favor of sound scientific method. That's why I protest so much...but I've said that also.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> I'm in favor of sound scientific method. That's why I protest so much...but I've said that also.


Except that your protests are extraordinarily lopsided.

And to put this silliness about fallacious arguments to rest, this is a discussion forum, not a formal debate. Complaining about them might win you brownie points with your high school debate coach, but here, it'll just earn you a


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Except that your protests are extraordinarily lopsided.
> 
> And to put this silliness about fallacious arguments to rest, this is a discussion forum, not a formal debate. Complaining about them might win you brownie points with your high school debate coach, but here, it'll just earn you a


Your opinion and you are welcome to it. Pointing out where logic has failed in a discussion is part of the discussion.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> Your opinion and you are welcome to it. Pointing out where logic has failed in a discussion is part of the discussion.


Subjectivist fallacy... Fail. Oops! 

Sorry bro, you're just not very good at this. I actually used to rather enjoy pointing these out myself, but have since come to realize it is most often employed when someone cannot form a coherent arguement of their own, and thus only attempts to attack the form of their opponents arguement, which is and of itself a fallacy. It's tantamount to correcting someone's spelling or grammar. You can complain about it all you want, but in an informal discussion such as this, it only makes *YOU* look bad.

Anyway, enough derailment about that.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Subjectivist fallacy... Fail. Oops!
> 
> Sorry bro, you're just not very good at this. I actually used to rather enjoy pointing these out myself, but have since come to realize it is most often employed when someone cannot form a coherent arguement of their own, and thus only attempts to attack the form of their opponents arguement, which is and of itself a fallacy. It's tantamount to correcting someone's spelling or grammar. You can complain about it all you want, but in an informal discussion such as this, it only makes *YOU* look bad.
> 
> Anyway, enough derailment about that.


Subjective/relativist fallacy fallacy:
Description: Claiming something is true for one person, but not for someone else when, in fact, it is true for everyone (objective) as demonstrated by empirical evidence.

from here: Subjectivist Fallacy

You said:


ZookeeperDoug said:


> Except that your protests are extraordinarily lopsided.


And I simply stated that is your opinion which you are welcome to. My opinions are obviously just mine. I've also said in ...I think a couple instances that I'm not trying to tell someone else what their own opinions should be. So I think you're just off base now and grasping at straws (note that was an opinion).  I agree we've probably derailed enough. So I'll stop now.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> So I think you're just off base now and grasping at straws (note that was an opinion).


I suppose since I'm permitted to my own opinions so are yours, but it is safe to say it's you who has been grasping at straws for A while now.



> I agree we've probably derailed enough. So I'll stop now.


we can only hope....


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> Yet another deflection attempt. You are making frequent use of the onus probandi fallacy. For folks unfamiliar with logic fallacies, I thought I'd better provide a link explaining what it is. You can read about this one here:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
> 
> ...


You seem to be deflecting the argument yourself by pointing out the same fallacy. Evidence has been presented for our side. Where is yours?


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> Yet another deflection attempt. You are making frequent use of the onus probandi fallacy. For folks unfamiliar with logic fallacies, I thought I'd better provide a link explaining what it is. You can read about this one here:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
> 
> ...


To add on to this, one of the links provided also states that it is a fallacy itself to dismiss a claim soley because it is not proven beyond all doubt. It goes on to say that we must assign value to a claim given the evidence we have. This is the logical fallacy that you seem to be guilty of. I would quote the article but I'm on mobile.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed/ZookeeperDoug:

Slightly OT, but does anyone know of any publications evaluating the effectiveness of ambassador animals in public education? Certainly people enjoy them and I remember something demonstrating live animals proved more effective than even preserved specimens in knowledge retention etc. 

Best
~Joe


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed/ZookeeperDoug:
> 
> Slightly OT, but does anyone know of any publications evaluating the effectiveness of ambassador animals in public education? Certainly people enjoy them and I remember something demonstrating live animals proved more effective than even preserved specimens in knowledge retention etc.
> 
> ...


Nothing I can quote offhand. I do know the AZA has done some "studies" on how to most effectively educate the public. I was a keeper, not an educator. Separate positions at my particular institution. I am however; good friends with the education director and will ask him.

I do know that the consensus is most people don't want to be educated. They need to be fooled into learning thru entertainment. For example, I trained a sea lion to recycle, made it fun, the catch phrase being if a Sea Lion can recycle, so can you. 

On your question, I do recall from my undergrad education at A&M and emphasis on getting out in the field and discovering species in their habitat, experiencing them live, etc is so much more meaningful and educational than looking at a dead fish in a jar for example.

I imagine studies have been done, I just don't know of any off hand to link for you. I'm willing to bet Ed does though.

Poke around here some.

https://www.aza.org/visitor-and-public-research/


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed/ZookeeperDoug:
> 
> Slightly OT, but does anyone know of any publications evaluating the effectiveness of ambassador animals in public education? Certainly people enjoy them and I remember something demonstrating live animals proved more effective than even preserved specimens in knowledge retention etc.
> 
> ...


I just skimmed this, but it seems to touch on what you're curious about

Evaluating the conservation impact of an innovative zoo-based educational campaign: 'Don't Palm Us Off' for orang-utan conservation.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> You seem to be deflecting the argument yourself by pointing out the same fallacy. Evidence has been presented for our side. Where is yours?





brendan0923 said:


> To add on to this, one of the links provided also states that it is a fallacy itself to dismiss a claim soley because it is not proven beyond all doubt. It goes on to say that we must assign value to a claim given the evidence we have. This is the logical fallacy that you seem to be guilty of. I would quote the article but I'm on mobile.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


There's the logic fallacy again. I'm not presenting a side, and I'm not dismissing the claim out of hand. I thought you were one of the few above who said they understood that, but maybe I misread. 

What I continue to say, is that the evidence presented doesn't support the hardline position being about the "bad"/harm to the frogs. I think folks are right that there IS sufficient information to make a hypothesis, but that's as far as one can go at this time in terms of a scientific argument. 

The fallacy you're pointing to in the second quote above hasn't been committed because I'm not wholly dismissing the evidence presented and saying there is no chance it's right. Although I do actually have an opinion on that, but I'm not going to argue my opinion on it.  I'm saying it's not sufficient to support the position based on the information presented, I don't think that's the same as dismissing it. So it's not that it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's that it hasn't been demonstrated at all in dart frogs. Now I will say someone posted a link to a study on frogs that i forgot to read. So I'll see if I can find that link again and read it.

Also, I think I said somewhere above, there are other reasons someone might not like hybrids. Even as simple as just "I don't like them." That's an opinion and people are certainly entitled to have whatever opinion they want. I wouldn't necessarily argue against someone's opinion, although I might question it (which might sound like arguing against it ).

- Mike
(PS. i know I said I would quit, but this one at least is on topic  ).


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed/ZookeeperDoug:
> 
> Slightly OT, but does anyone know of any publications evaluating the effectiveness of ambassador animals in public education? Certainly people enjoy them and I remember something demonstrating live animals proved more effective than even preserved specimens in knowledge retention etc.
> 
> ...


The FWS has been focusing on outreach programs for several years now. As an agency the FWS finally recognized that if people didn't get out to see the resources they weren't going to value them, so they can't be hidden away behind a locked gate. For years the FWS encouraged resources to be fenced off and trails/public use eliminated. That's not (entirely) the case anymore. There is an entire program within the FWS for outreach and education. One of the subprograms is called Schoolyard habitat program. There is also a nice book, if you're interested in a longer read called Last Child in the Woods. I'll link to it below.

While not exactly what you were talking about, I checked google scholar (is that what it's still called?) here are some papers:
Public Outreach: A Scientific Imperative
Scientific Outreach: Toward Effective Public Engagement with Biological Science
Challenges for Environmental Education: Issues and Ideas for the 21st Century

Here is the schoolyard program at FWS and a link to the book I mention above.
Pacific Southwest Region - US Fish & Wildlife Service
Last Child in the Woods - Overview - Richard Louv

Hope that helps
- Mike


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> There's the logic fallacy again. I'm not presenting a side, and I'm not dismissing the claim out of hand. I thought you were one of the few above who said they understood that, but maybe I misread.
> 
> What I continue to say, is that the evidence presented doesn't support the hardline position being about the "bad"/harm to the frogs. I think folks are right that there IS sufficient information to make a hypothesis, but that's as far as one can go at this time in terms of a scientific argument.
> 
> ...


Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood. Your claim of burden of proof is based on the opinion that our evidence is invalid. So, your argument is that the evidence presented does not support the claim that hybridizing has ill effects on Dendrobatids, right? You also claim that since there has been no direct study on Dendrobatids, our evidence is not applicable? Please elaborate. Why do you think that these studies do not support our claim? Why are they not applicable? My apologies if you have already answered these questions before, this discussion has gone on so long I sometimes forget what was posted! But I do really want to know your answers to these questions.

P.S. Ed was the one who posted the study I believe, on the common frog.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood. Your claim of burden of proof is based on the opinion that our evidence is invalid. So, your argument is that the evidence presented does not support the claim that hybridizing has ill effects on Dendrobatids, right? You also claim that since there has been no direct study on Dendrobatids, our evidence is not applicable? Please elaborate. Why do you think that these studies do not support our claim? Why are they not applicable? My apologies if you have already answered these questions before, this discussion has gone on so long I sometimes forget what was posted! But I do really want to know your answers to these questions.
> 
> P.S. Ed was the one who posted the study I believe, on the common frog.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


I would make a distinction between invalid vs insufficient. I would not say the information is invalid. If I did, then that would be a fallacy like you mentioned above. I'm saying the studies are applicable. They do support making a hypothesis. But to move further, to move to the scientific conclusion that I think is being made there needs to be more evidence. Such as a study. Which personally I think would be rather straight forward (it could be based off the standard life history studies) and it wouldn't have to look at many generations of frogs. It could start by just looking at 1 generation. One could look at several factors to compare like fecundity (such as # of eggs laid, % that hatch, % that metamorph, etc), size at first breeding of females (or males)(snout to vent length, or weight), age at first breeding, and survivorship to one year. And while a little more complex, one could even look at predation rate.. Looking at those things, even if it was just one study and only for a year, the results could lend significant weight to the argument being made.

Maybe I should make another distinction. I think it's perfectly legit to say something like "I think based on these papers there is there is a health risk to the frogs." That's a personal opinion. But that's very different than saying "Based on these papers the science shows there IS a deleterious effect to the health of the frogs." That's where my issue is and that's where several folks have taken the discussion.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> I would make a distinction between invalid vs insufficient. I would not say the information is invalid. If I did, then that would be a fallacy like you mentioned above. I'm saying the studies are applicable. They do support making a hypothesis. But to move further, to move to the scientific conclusion that I think is being made there needs to be more evidence. Such as a study. Which personally I think would be rather straight forward (it could be based off the standard life history studies) and it wouldn't have to look at many generations of frogs. It could start by just looking at 1 generation. One could look at several factors to compare like fecundity (such as # of eggs laid, % that hatch, % that metamorph, etc), size at first breeding of females (or males)(snout to vent length, or weight), age at first breeding, and survivorship to one year. And while a little more complex, one could even look at predation rate.. Looking at those things, even if it was just one study and only for a year, the results could lend significant weight to the argument being made.
> 
> Maybe I should make another distinction. I think it's perfectly legit to say something like "I think based on these papers there is there is a health risk to the frogs." That's a personal opinion. But that's very different than saying "Based on these papers the science shows there IS a deleterious effect to the health of the frogs." That's where my issue is and that's where several folks have taken the discussion.


Thank you for responding. 

I absolutely agree that we can't say, without a doubt, that outbreeding depression will occur in hybrid Dendrobatids.

However I don't think anybody is making absolute claims here, at least that's not what I'm arguing. There is evidence to suggest that outbreeding depression tends to occur in several different species of animals, I think we both agree on that. In addition, Ed, among the tons of other pieces of evidence he has posted, presented evidence of it happening in frogs. So, my and several other people's argument is that with no clear benefits, and evidence to suggest that there is a strong POSSIBILITY for negative outcomes, why take the risk? Because (opinion incoming) when humans think they know better than nature, that tends to come with many unintended consequences. I would give examples but I don't want to detract from the main argument. But my point is, that I don't believe anybody here is stating an absolute claim as you are suggesting. 

And again, scientists do indeed use data from other things and apply it to different things. Take drug experiments. Scientists, when developing a new drug, will often test on animals, such as lab rats, to gather relevant data in order to determine how humans will react to the drug. Rats often react very similar to diseases and medications, so it is valid data and scientists can safely assume that humans will react similarly to the drug. 

Now I'm not saying that a direct study on Dendrobatids wouldn't be beneficial, as I think it absolutley would. But at the same time, I don't think that necessarily makes our data insufficient. It's not enough to be absolutley 100% sure of course, but I think it's enough to say that it is a very likely possiblility, given the plethora of evidence that exists.

This is why I don't believe the burden of proof is on us. We have evidence. Whether or not it's enough is not certain. But when all we have is this evidence, no evidence to suggest that hybridization is beneficial, and no clear reasons to hybridize, many of us see it as unethical to produce hybrid offspring. 

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

I have read richard louv...great read.


As someone trying to make a career in informal ed. It is clear that it is not assigned the same value and therefore funding as formal ed. Which in aviciuos cycle leads to fairly watered down xontent in some informal ed programs...which is also not very well funded. Maybe research would help.

Lets start a new topic in the lounge


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

Ok, fair enough. If I can restate what I think you're saying, you're attributing a lot of weight (or high value) to the studies that have been presented. I don't think the value of the evidence provided is very high and I think you asked if I'd explain why, so I'll take a shot, but it's late and I'm tired and still have to work tomorrow. 

You're right, studies on one organism are used to infer something about another organism. Let's stick with the example you gave of drug trials. Drug trials usually take several stages of experiments before they are FDA approved for human use. They may start with models and simulations. Then move on to animal testing. The first organism to be tested isn't always the closest match to humans. They might first run drug trials on say small mammals like mice. Then they may run tests on larger mammals like cats or pigs. Then maybe a monkey or ape trial. Then move to human clinical trials. Then FDA approval for human use. 

After each step the evidence mounts in support of the hypothesis that the drug is useful to humans. FDA approval doesn't usually happen with just the results from the models or simulations or after the first animal trial. It takes mounting evidence to get that approval. Same sort of process is followed in pesticide approvals for new chemicals. The same thing is often true for biological studies. It usually take more than just one for a hypothesis to be generally accepted. 

Another example, take maximum dispersal distance of quino checkerspot butterflies (an endangered butterfly down your way). If I were trying to figure out how likely a proposed subdivision was to harm them when the population was 600 meters away, I would need to know the dispersal capabilities of the quino checkerspot butterfly. If I only had one study that looked at movement and it reported individuals of another butterfly species (callippe silverspot butterflies) but similar in size moving 200 meters, I wouldn't be able to say much. All I could say is that butterflies of a similar species travel at least 200 meters. But if I had 4, 6, or 10 studies all on quino (or even another member of the same species) and each with a reported dispersal movement around 200 meters (maybe some were 160 and some were 210) the confidence goes up a lot supporting the hypothesis that they only travel approximately 200 meters. And I should be able to say with high confidence that a project 600 meters away wouldn't have a negative impact. Keep in mind I'm using terms rather loosely. Confidence intervals and what's significant and what isn't is all statistical jargon and have specific meanings that I'm not really using here.

So my point is just that several steps (or studies) might be taken between initial hypothesis (where there is low confidence) and final acceptance (where there is a high confidence in the conclusion).

- Mike
ps. i'm too tired to check for typos or spelling errors.


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

Hybridizing could carry negative consequences based on studies of other living things. Hybridizing, once done, cannot be undone. If we hybridize and outbreeding depression occurs in dentrobatids, we are up the creek and can never undo the damage. Why take the risk? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> Ok, fair enough. If I can restate what I think you're saying, you're attributing a lot of weight (or high value) to the studies that have been presented. I don't think the value of the evidence provided is very high and I think you asked if I'd explain why, so I'll take a shot, but it's late and I'm tired and still have to work tomorrow.
> 
> You're right, studies on one organism are used to infer something about another organism. Let's stick with the example you gave of drug trials. Drug trials usually take several stages of experiments before they are FDA approved for human use. They may start with models and simulations. Then move on to animal testing. The first organism to be tested isn't always the closest match to humans. They might first run drug trials on say small mammals like mice. Then they may run tests on larger mammals like cats or pigs. Then maybe a monkey or ape trial. Then move to human clinical trials. Then FDA approval for human use.
> 
> ...


You are correct. However, if we are sticking with the lab rat example, further testing is not always conducted. For instance, let's say that drug A is being tested on a rat. After taking the drug, the rat experiences severe respiratory problems. Rats and humans share many biological processes and rats are commonly used as models for respiratory issues in humans. From this, we can draw a logical conclusion that this drug is probably not safe for human use. Therefore, if we take this same concept and apply it to hybridizing, why should we hybridize when it has been shown to be harmful in many other species? Once you find a negative effect, and the potential risk is greater than the reward, is it worth it to continue?


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

It always comes down to why take the risk? No tangible reward for obvious risk. For what?? Why?


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

TarantulaGuy said:


> It always comes down to why take the risk? No tangible reward for obvious risk. For what?? Why?



Exactly why I would like to see this question answered!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> You are correct. However, if we are sticking with the lab rat example, further testing is not always conducted. For instance, let's say that drug A is being tested on a rat. After taking the drug, the rat experiences severe respiratory problems. Rats and humans share many biological processes and rats are commonly used as models for respiratory issues in humans. From this, we can draw a logical conclusion that this drug is probably not safe for human use. Therefore, if we take this same concept and apply it to hybridizing, why should we hybridize when it has been shown to be harmful in many other species? Once you find a negative effect, and the potential risk is greater than the reward, is it worth it to continue?


I can't answer that question, because it's not my issue. I'm not advocating for a hybrid. And now we've come full circle again and the same question is being directed at me again after lengthy explanations that I'm neither for nor against the hybrid issue. My only issue is the way the information is being presented as a fact, which it isn't.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> I can't answer that question, because it's not my issue. I'm not advocating for a hybrid. And now we've come full circle again and the same question is being directed at me again after lengthy explanations that I'm neither for nor against the hybrid issue. My only issue is the way the information is being presented as a fact, which it isn't.


You're certainly not against hybrids, you've made it very clear your have no problems with people producing them. That makes you pro hybrid as far as we're concerned.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> My only issue is the way the information is being presented as a fact, which it isn't.


We just addressed this. Most people here are not presenting it as fact. 

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

tardis101 said:


> I can't answer that question, because it's not my issue. I'm not advocating for a hybrid. And now we've come full circle again and the same question is being directed at me again after lengthy explanations that I'm neither for nor against the hybrid issue. My only issue is the way the information is being presented as a fact, which it isn't.



We have established the potential for risk. Once done, it cannot be undone. Given that information, is it reasonable to conclude that hybridization should not be done unless:

1. It can specifically be proven it isn't harmful, or
2. The reward of hybridization exceeds the potential harm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> You're certainly not against hybrids, you've made it very clear your have no problems with people producing them. That makes you pro hybrid as far as we're concerned.


That's an interesting view of how you see a neutrality. But it's a good example of the point of view that some people are coming from on this subject. 



brendan0923 said:


> We just addressed this. Most people here are not presenting it as fact.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


Yes you did and I believe you. But others are certainly are presenting it that way and while it may not be "most" here, it's a very vocal group who are. So it seems like a lot.

ps. insomnia stinks...


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> That's an interesting view of how you see a neutrality. But it's a good example of the point of view that some people are coming from on this subject.





FrogTim said:


> Ok so my title says it all. I have a 29gallon vivarium with a small waterfall/water section housing 4 juvenile auratus. 2 blue & black, 2 green & bronze. The frogs are the same age/size from a breeder who said it was OK to house different morphs of the same species together given adequate tank size, food availability, hiding places, size of the frogs, etc.
> 
> I am paying close attention to make sure all the frogs are eating and healthy. So far so good.
> 
> ...





tardis101 said:


> This is my opinion.  it's fine.
> 
> But others are going to see this as similar to the hybrid issue. So just be prepared.


Your words. This isn't similar to the hybrid issue, this IS the hybrid issue. Mixing morphs in the same enclosure is promoting hybrids. If you choose not to see it that way, fine, but you that is not the the way the community at large is going to see it. So don't expect us to believe you when you say you don't have a horse in this race, because you're obviously in favor of hybrids based on that post, there is no other way to spin that.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> That's an interesting view of how you see a neutrality..


It is abundantly clear that you're anything but neutral. Yes, it's that transparent. You can protest to your hearts content, but we see right through you.


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

tardis101 said:


> Ok, fair enough. If I can restate what I think you're saying, you're attributing a lot of weight (or high value) to the studies that have been presented. I don't think the value of the evidence provided is very high and I think you asked if I'd explain why, so I'll take a shot, but it's late and I'm tired and still have to work tomorrow.
> 
> You're right, studies on one organism are used to infer something about another organism. Let's stick with the example you gave of drug trials. Drug trials usually take several stages of experiments before they are FDA approved for human use. They may start with models and simulations. Then move on to animal testing. The first organism to be tested isn't always the closest match to humans. They might first run drug trials on say small mammals like mice. Then they may run tests on larger mammals like cats or pigs. Then maybe a monkey or ape trial. Then move to human clinical trials. Then FDA approval for human use.
> 
> ...


Understandably different people can read a preponderance of evidence differently, and the easiest thing in the world is to poke holes in an analogy. That's not my specific intention but I think the difference between your example and this issue is important. Your butterfly example addresses behavior, which is hugely variable along taxa. The issue with outbreeding depression is one of genetics which, once understood, is largely applicable across species. You couldn't make assumptions about human behavior based on rats, but you can definitely make assumptions about human genetic behavior based on rat genetics. 

To many of us, your seeming rejection of the value of modeling in this instance is just...strange. It's like saying "Sure, 5x5=25 on Earth, but how do we know that's true on other planets?" Could there be extenuating circumstances that make what we understand not apply to Darts? Yes. Is it much, much more likely that what we understand about outbreeding depression also applies to darts. Yes.


----------



## allegedhuman (Nov 19, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> Another example, take maximum dispersal distance of quino checkerspot butterflies (an endangered butterfly down your way). If I were trying to figure out how likely a proposed subdivision was to harm them when the population was 600 meters away, I would need to know the dispersal capabilities of the quino checkerspot butterfly. If I only had one study that looked at movement and it reported individuals of another butterfly species (callippe silverspot butterflies) but similar in size moving 200 meters, I wouldn't be able to say much. All I could say is that butterflies of a similar species travel at least 200 meters. But if I had 4, 6, or 10 studies all on quino (or even another member of the same species) and each with a reported dispersal movement around 200 meters (maybe some were 160 and some were 210) the confidence goes up a lot supporting the hypothesis that they only travel approximately 200 meters. And I should be able to say with high confidence that a project 600 meters away wouldn't have a negative impact.


It would be great to have 4-10 studies confirming the exact same thing in the exact same species…getting the funding for the research and being able to publish papers that are just confirming and repeating other published studies without adding novel information is going to be tough to achieve though, especially to do this for every single species someone could be interested in.

My question is what would be an appropriate response in a different development plan consultation scenario. If it is the same subdivision plan 600 meters away and we need to do an environmental impact assessment and searching the literature we find 1 or 2 papers that say in a similar butterfly species they have seen evidence that 600 meters is a range that would cause trouble for those similar species of butterflies but there is no identical study for the same species you are involved with…what should we propose? With planning boards operating on timelines and deadlines will it really be likely to convince the planning and development commission to wait for the time and money necessary to conduct a new full study to be done on every single identical species involved before we give our assessment, especially since to development companies time is money?

If our job is to advise the impact of this proposed developmental project, what are we to do? If our job is supposed to advise to the best of our ability I feel giving a report advising “caution” is more appropriate than saying “we don’t have all the details to make any kind of conclusion for this specific species”. 

We can conclude there is evidence for caution based on other similar species, maybe not necessarily to conclude absolute outcome prediction but that is better than saying nothing though. If we wait to have all the details on all exact species then the construction project would already be built by then. Unfortunately it seems many people act as if that if they don’t get an explicit “no” then it must mean "yes"? (Sorry to get all rape-y with the analogy…)

That is the situation I see with our debate on hybridization. There are many papers in other genera that illustrate hybridization problems. Ok, some people don’t like that because it isn’t close enough to frogs and they say you can't use it as support (I disagree with that claim, but moving on since this dead horse has been beaten until nice and tender by now). In that case there are already two papers in frogs mentioned just within this thread that show observed issues in frog populations.


Ed said:


> from Sagvik, Jörgen, Tobias Uller, and Mats Olsson. "Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria." Conservation Genetics 6.2 (2005): 205-211. accessed from
> http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files\6063\articles\5372\LV68M29432114864.pdf
> 
> Ed





TarantulaGuy said:


> Food for thought. Restricted natural hybridization between two species of litter
> frogs on a threatened landscape in southwestern Brazilian
> Amazonia
> 
> Seems to indicate selection against natural hybrids is ongoing in these two species of Allobates.


Here are two papers suggest hybridization is not desirable in frogs. So when new hobbyists keep asking “can I keep these different frogs together” or “what is the deal with hybridization” should we advise based upon the best of our knowledge to describe why hybridization is not looked upon favorably? Or just be quiet and wait for >2-10 papers to be completed for every species of dart frogs before answering these questions? Should we not give information to newbies when they ask or start passing off information as fact to others when they themselves are new and don’t know the background any better? If I’m unaware of something I would rather people who know more than me to give me advice and information regarding the whole picture that would save trouble down the line, instead of just concluding that due to incomplete data things should be fine.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

TarantulaGuy said:


> Your words. This isn't similar to the hybrid issue, this IS the hybrid issue. Mixing morphs in the same enclosure is promoting hybrids. If you choose not to see it that way, fine, but you that is not the the way the community at large is going to see it. So don't expect us to believe you when you say you don't have a horse in this race, because you're obviously in favor of hybrids based on that post, there is no other way to spin that.


No it isn't. He specifically said he wasn't talking about hybrids and stated he was housing them together. He was asking about keeping two color morphs together (frogs known to be able to be housed in groups). Because he was talking about size and age, I assumed he was asking if it was safe for the individual frogs (i.e.., would they fight or something). I was responding to that question.



ZookeeperDoug said:


> It is abundantly clear that you're anything but neutral. Yes, it's that transparent. You can protest to your hearts content, but we see right through you.


And you are certainly well within your rights. Have at it. 



Boondoggle said:


> Understandably different people can read a preponderance of evidence differently, and the easiest thing in the world is to poke holes in an analogy. That's not my specific intention but I think the difference between your example and this issue is important. Your butterfly example addresses behavior, which is hugely variable along taxa. The issue with outbreeding depression is one of genetics which, once understood, is largely applicable across species. You couldn't make assumptions about human behavior based on rats, but you can definitely make assumptions about human genetic behavior based on rat genetics.


Well, I'm not sure I'd call it a preponderance of evidence, but I think that's part of our disagreement  Analogies are weak, but I understand what you're saying. I understand what outbreeding depression is, but just because you mix two populations doesn't mean it will experience an outbreeding depression. It's entirely based on how those two populations have evolved over time and if there are any significant gene differences between them and if mixing them causes lower fitness. 

I read the paper on the Rana temporaria and I don't think it means what folks here think it means. What they are getting at is that the smaller of the two populations experienced a significant inbreeding depression event(s) and when they back crossed them to the larger population the offspring were smaller when the female was from the larger population. "Although the smaller hatchling size could be explained by genetic differences between populations, it could also be a consequence of detrimental effects due to inbreeding, which is likely to be the reason for the (marginally signifi-cant) higher incidence of malformations."

Basically they introduced a set of less fit genes into a population that was more fit. The authors only saw a delterious effect in one direction of the crosses. In fact they specifically say "For the small population, however, no significant paternal genetic effects could be found." 

At the end of the paper in the discussion section they say "Outbreeding depression has been found in rel-atively few natural animal populations, especially in intraspecific matings (Alstad & Edmunds 1983; Brown 1991; Edmands 1999; Marr et al. 2002)..." Which should have some influence on how you view these outbreeding depression models. The authors go on to say outbreeding depression could be an issue in amphibians and provide citations for that and they say more research should be done to see if their results could even be replicated in other amphibians. But they also say just before the end this "Thus, from a conservation perspective, translocating individuals from a larger population could be used as a means to avoid inbreeding in this species."



Boondoggle said:


> To many of us, your seeming rejection of the value of modeling in this instance is just...strange. It's like saying "Sure, 5x5=25 on Earth, but how do we know that's true on other planets?" Could there be extenuating circumstances that make what we understand not apply to Darts? Yes. Is it much, much more likely that what we understand about outbreeding depression also applies to darts. Yes.


I didn't reject the value of it (which I have said). I said it sounds like I'm giving it lower value than what others are and then I was asked why and I answered that.


----------



## MasterOogway (Mar 22, 2011)

tardis101 said:


> No it isn't. He specifically said he wasn't talking about hybrids and stated he was housing them together. He was asking about keeping two color morphs together (frogs known to be able to be housed in groups). Because he was talking about size and age, I assumed he was asking if it was safe for the individual frogs (i.e.., would they fight or something). I was responding to that question.
> 
> 
> And you are certainly well within your rights. Have at it.


You're *recommending* housing two locales of the same species together, which is inevitably going to result in hybridization of those two locales. ANd you say you're not doing that? Whatever helps you sleep at night guy. I'm over debating it with you. Clearly you're going to live in your own little world where you're still 'neutral.'


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> I read the paper on the Rana temporaria and I don't think it means what folks here think it means. What they are getting at is that the smaller of the two populations experienced a significant inbreeding depression event(s) and when they back crossed them to the larger population the offspring were smaller when the female was from the larger population. "Although the smaller hatchling size could be explained by genetic differences between populations, it could also be a consequence of detrimental effects due to inbreeding, which is likely to be the reason for the (marginally signifi-cant) higher incidence of malformations."
> 
> Basically they introduced a set of less fit genes into a population that was more fit. The authors only saw a delterious effect in one direction of the crosses. In fact they specifically say "For the small population, however, no significant paternal genetic effects could be found."
> 
> At the end of the paper in the discussion section they say "Outbreeding depression has been found in rel-atively few natural animal populations, especially in intraspecific matings (Alstad & Edmunds 1983; Brown 1991; Edmands 1999; Marr et al. 2002)..." Which should have some influence on how you view these outbreeding depression models. The authors go on to say outbreeding depression could be an issue in amphibians and provide citations for that and they say more research should be done to see if their results could even be replicated in other amphibians. But they also say just before the end this "Thus, from a conservation perspective, translocating individuals from a larger population could be used as a means to avoid inbreeding in this species."


Yes, however the study also says: 



Outbreeding depression in the common frog said:


> However, females from the large population suf-
> fered negative effects of male genetic contributions
> from the small population, with a higher incidence
> of malformed hatchlings under outbreeding, even
> ...


And 



Outbreeding depression in the common frog said:


> As indi-
> cated by the present study, such introductions
> could potentially lead to reduced fitness, even if
> the populations are not separated by more than
> ...


And also



Outbreeding depression in the common frog said:


> Nevertheless we suggest that care should be
> taken when introducing new genetic material to
> save threatened amphibian populations. The pro-
> cedure outlined in the current paper offers a
> ...


This paper illustrates the possible consequences of outbreeding depression. While inbreeding is also a problem (I think we all can agree on that), outbreeding depression has been demonstrated in several different species, including Rana temporaria. Further studies should be conducted, but I don't believe that it is up to average hobbyists wanting pet frogs to find out if outbreeding depression is a significant issue in Dendrobatids or not. Again I stress the question: why take the risk?

For reference, here is the paper we are referring to, in case anyone else wants to read it for themselves: Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria 

Ed posted it earlier in this thread, but I thought I'd post it again since we are discussing it.

EDIT: Oops somebody already posted it. My bad.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> Yes, however the study also says:
> 
> Originally Posted by Outbreeding depression in the common frog, Rana temporaria
> However, females from the large population suf-
> ...


Yes, I quoted that part of the study. But it follows that up with saying that "Although the smaller hatchling size could be explained by genetic differences between populations, it could also be a consequence of detrimental effects due to inbreeding, which is likely to be the reason for the (marginally signifi-cant) higher incidence of malformations." It is specifically saying the malformations were likely due to inbreeding depression not outbreeding. 



brendan0923 said:


> This paper illustrates the possible consequences of outbreeding depression. While inbreeding is also a problem (I think we all can agree on that), outbreeding depression has been demonstrated in several different species, including Rana temporaria. Further studies should be conducted, but I don't believe that it is up to average hobbyists wanting pet frogs to find out if outbreeding depression is a significant issue in Dendrobatids or not. Again I stress the question: why take the risk?


And that's what I mean when I said I don't think the paper means what you think it does. The effects they saw once they outbreed the small population with the large one were likely attributed to (at least the malformations - which only occurred at a "marginally significant" higher rate than the the pure populations) were likely attributable to inbreeding. They actually say that. The deleterious effects were only observed in one direction, which they said they didn't expect. So that means the small population had either a higher rate of deleterious alleles or a greater number of them (we don't know based on the results of this paper). So when the genes from the small population were were introduced into the large population they saw a negative impact. If outbreeding depression alone was the issue here, they should have seen negative effects in both directions. But they didn't.

Yes, I agree they also acknowledge there may be a negative effect and caution should be used. Again thought I'm not saying make a bunch of hybrids. All I was doing was reading the paper because I was asked too.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> Yes, I quoted that part of the study. But it follows that up with saying that "Although the smaller hatchling size could be explained by genetic differences between populations, it could also be a consequence of detrimental effects due to inbreeding, which is likely to be the reason for the (marginally signifi-cant) higher incidence of malformations." It is specifically saying the malformations were likely due to inbreeding depression not outbreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It says that inbreeding could account for some, not all, of the malformations. They said: 

"Although the smaller hatchling size
could be explained by genetic differences between
populations, it could also be a consequence of
detrimental effects due to inbreeding, which is
likely to be the reason for the (marginally signifi-
cant) higher incidence of malformations. Thus,
from a conservation perspective, translocating
individuals from a larger population could be used
as a means to avoid inbreeding in this species.
*However, females from the large population suf-
fered negative effects of male genetic contributions
from the small population, with a higher incidence
of malformed hatchlings under outbreeding, even
higher than the degree of malformations in the
‘‘pure’’ inbred matings. *Thus, this runs counter to
the argument that small populations are purged of
detrimental recessives. Furthermore, eggs from the
large population developed into smaller hatchlings
when fertilized by males from the small popula-
tion. If this was the result of parental genetic
effects only, we would have expected similar effects
in the reciprocal crossings in both populations.
This was not the case, and the direction of paternal
effects based on male size for females from the
small population was even opposite to that pre-
dicted based on pure genetic differentiation
between populations (Figure. 2). *Thus, from a
female’s perspective, outbreeding generates nega-
tive effects for the large, but not the small popu-
lation*, both with respect to offspring quality (as
determined by incidence of malformations), and
hatchling size, which is likely to be related to size at metamorphosis, and ultimately fitness (Altwegg
& Reyer 2003)."

The paper acknowledges inbreeding as a cause for some of the malformations, but it does not strictly say that inbreeding was the sole cause and, in fact, states that outbreeding negatively impacted the females.


----------



## tardis101 (Apr 11, 2012)

brendan0923 said:


> It says that inbreeding could account for some, not all, of the malformations. They said:
> 
> "Although the smaller hatchling size
> could be explained by genetic differences between
> ...


You're interpreting differently than I am.  The outbreeding effects they saw were only in the large population after they introduced the genes from the small population. The small population likely had to have experienced an inbreeding depression event (or events). But you couldn't have observed those effects unless they crossed the populations because there wouldn't have been the same basis of comparison (at least in this experiment). If the negative effects were primarily the result of the outcross, then both populations should have experienced deleterious effects. Which they expected to see, but they didn't. 

It doesn't say "some of the malformations." Unless you're referring to the malformations in the pure populations. But if that's what you mean, that's part of the baseline used for comparison.


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

tardis101 said:


> You're interpreting differently than I am.  The outbreeding effects they saw were only in the large population after they introduced the genes from the small population. The small population likely had to have experienced an inbreeding depression event (or events). But you couldn't have observed those effects unless they crossed the populations because there wouldn't have been the same basis of comparison (at least in this experiment). If the negative effects were primarily the result of the outcross, then both populations should have experienced deleterious effects. Which they expected to see, but they didn't.
> 
> It doesn't say "some of the malformations." Unless you're referring to the malformations in the pure populations. But if that's what you mean, that's part of the baseline used for comparison.


Yeah I meant the pure crosses. Sorry! Got that mixed up.

Anyways, I think I'm picking up what you're putting down. The lack of response to outcrossing shown in the small population and the response shown in the large population is due to deletarious alleles from the small population suffered from an inbreeding depression, yes? 

Because the large population showed a significant degree of malformations, higher than the pure matings, wouldn't that demonstrate the dangers of outbreeding? Introducing deletarious alleles from one population to another is certainly a cause for concern, especially since genetic differentiation is so drastic in amphibians. The study seems to show that populations with already high genetic variation will react worse to outcrossing than small populations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not there either, and considering that many of these dart frogs have not come into contact with one another for thousands of years, surely it is a possibility that it could have an impact on Dendrobatids.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, but that's what I'm getting out of it.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Why not just look at peer reviewed papers on inbreeding effects and see how many papers there are on that compared to outbreeding and see who is lopsiding the argument? If you are that worried about the health of the frogs that would have equal weight and disdain. If you are going to pick and choose what is "best" for the frogs, without using ALL the science, then the whole argument is null.
You have to separate between people who just want pets(hobbyists) and people who want to manage how all the frogs in the hobby are cared for. They obviously don't weigh purebreds the same as you.
After a hybrid event it doesn't mean that all subsequent generations will die off. Some may and some will be better suited for the viv. The genetics mix and you get some that are better and some that are worse depending upon your pairings and hte genes involved. And vit deficiencies and balance with fats probably has more to do with malformations and breeding and health problems than any genetics(other than inbreeding at this point). It is true that frogs may have been mismanaged to the point of seeing higher rates of malformations in captivity because of it when being hybridized. But it's not up to a small group to make the call of what should and shouldn't be done. Someone who actually wants to study this stuff(future geneticist?) should experiment to see what the truth is instead of speculating and splitting the hobby.


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> Why not just look at peer reviewed papers on inbreeding effects and see how many papers there are on that compared to outbreeding and see who is lopsiding the argument? If you are that worried about the health of the frogs that would have equal weight and disdain. If you are going to pick and choose what is "best" for the frogs, without using ALL the science, then the whole argument is null.
> You have to separate between people who just want pets(hobbyists) and people who want to manage how all the frogs in the hobby are cared for. They obviously don't weigh purebreds the same as you.
> After a hybrid event it doesn't mean that all subsequent generations will die off. Some may and some will be better suited for the viv. The genetics mix and you get some that are better and some that are worse depending upon your pairings and hte genes involved. And vit deficiencies and balance with fats probably has more to do with malformations and breeding and health problems than any genetics(other than inbreeding at this point). It is true that frogs may have been mismanaged to the point of seeing higher rates of malformations in captivity because of it when being hybridized. But it's not up to a small group to make the call of what should and shouldn't be done. Someone who actually wants to study this stuff(future geneticist?) should experiment to see what the truth is instead of speculating and splitting the hobby.


Why not just answer this question?



Celtic Aaron said:


> We have established the potential for risk. Once done, it cannot be undone. Given that information, is it reasonable to conclude that hybridization should not be done unless:
> 
> 1. It can specifically be proven it isn't harmful, or
> 2. The reward of hybridization exceeds the potential harm?
> ...


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Why not just look at peer reviewed papers on inbreeding effects and see how many papers there are on that compared to outbreeding and see who is lopsiding the argument? If you are that worried about the health of the frogs that would have equal weight and disdain. If you are going to pick and choose what is "best" for the frogs, without using ALL the science, then the whole argument is null.


So if we aren't willing to compound one problem we haven't gotten sorted out yet, with another one.... our argument is null? ...Sounds like you are arguing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 



Roadrunner said:


> You have to separate between people who just want pets(hobbyists) and people who want to manage how all the frogs in the hobby are cared for. They obviously don't weigh purebreds the same as you.


No obviously they don't weigh things the same as us. So why are we expected to protect their interests when they don't seem willing to protect ours???



Roadrunner said:


> After a hybrid event it doesn't mean that all subsequent generations will die off. Some may and some will be better suited for the viv. The genetics mix and you get some that are better and some that are worse depending upon your pairings and hte genes involved. And vit deficiencies and balance with fats probably has more to do with malformations and breeding and health problems than any genetics(other than inbreeding at this point).


Aaron if you wanna argue that we need to start using hybridization to insure we have any kinda dart frog in the coming decades, that might be a conversation worth having. By all means start a new thread and present your evidence.




Roadrunner said:


> It is true that frogs may have been mismanaged to the point of seeing higher rates of malformations in captivity because of it when being hybridized. * But it's not up to a small group to make the call of what should and shouldn't be done.* Someone who actually wants to study this stuff(future geneticist?) should experiment to see what the truth is instead of speculating and splitting the hobby.


Ah, it isn't up to small group to make the call of what should and shouldn't be done, yet that is exactly what the designer crowd is doing when they shove designer frogs down the hobby's throat. 

Yet again we have you using the same argument we are, but for some reason it is only right when you use it.

I'm not really understanding what entitles you, or the designer frog side to all this special treatment


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Have we done this for just having frogs in captivity? There are risks for introducing non native pathogens at least this only incurs risk to the individual frog. In just breeding the frogs ,whether inbreeding hybridizing or randomly breeding you incur the same risk of mutations. In hybridizing you incur the same risk of developing a frog that is better genetically suited to it's environment. If it's a statistically barely significant risk by hybridizing, your incurring more risk by only feeding fruitflies. Not a large enough proven risk to be significant. Again you guys are inbreeding to a point that outbreeding will be past an option if needed to save a morph.


Celtic Aaron said:


> Why not just answer this question?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Who said anything about protecting interests? You don't have to protect their interest just leave their choices of what they do with their frogs alone and don't buy them. Who is forcing anything on you, just don't buy them, easy peasy. You're doing more damage by driving them underground, there they WILL get mixed in. I just don't see why this whole thing has to be about how YOU are affected while leaving the way THEY are affected out. You can both live in harmony, YOU choose not to. Everyone can have their way, YOU just can't see that. You can do what you want without including them on your goal of maintaining teh frogs pure that YOU find "valuable" and let them maintain what they find "valuable". You can each do your own little thing in this world without ever intersecting, just buy the frogs you want from teh people you want to who haven't bought from them and they can buy from whoever they want since they don't have the same standards. This is really kindergarten stuff here.



Dendro Dave said:


> So if we aren't willing to compound one problem we haven't gotten sorted out yet, with another one.... our argument is null? ...Sounds like you are arguing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Hey maybe if I revive this thread in the dead of night when nobody is looking I'll get the last word!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> Who said anything about protecting interests? You don't have to protect their interest just leave their choices of what they do with their frogs alone and don't buy them. Who is forcing anything on you, just don't buy them, easy peasy. You're doing more damage by driving them underground, there they WILL get mixed in. I just don't see why this whole thing has to be about how YOU are affected while leaving the way THEY are affected out. You can both live in harmony, YOU choose not to. Everyone can have their way, YOU just can't see that. You can do what you want without including them on your goal of maintaining teh frogs pure that YOU find "valuable" and let them maintain what they find "valuable". You can each do your own little thing in this world without ever intersecting, just buy the frogs you want from teh people you want to who haven't bought from them and they can buy from whoever they want since they don't have the same standards. This is really kindergarten stuff here.


Well you will probably use your TLDR cop out again, but...

I know you believe in this separate but equal frog utopia, but you've shown us no reason to believe it will play out like YOU HOPE. On the other hand what we are doing now has managed to keep a lid on things pretty well the last several decades.

Our peer pressure/honor system has worked pretty well up until you know who arrived on the scene, and I'd be shocked if they last another few years, but still even with their arrival no one else that I'm aware of has joined them in producing designer frogs on a commercial scale.

Yes we have the occasional rogue element pop up and a few hybrids underground, but stands to reason that if we give open or tacit approval there is going to be even more of that going on because so far the negative repercussions seem to nip it in the butt pretty quickly in most cases.

As for looking out for other'sinterests: yes it has/is being discussed and by you, because you are essentially asking us to look after their designer frog interests but there is no discussion on how they will help insure our interests are protected.

It still boggles my mind that you seem to really believe what they do won't effect us. It is effecting us right now, and even if we shut up everyone isn't just going to be magically oK with it and stop being pissed, because you aren't going to have a massive paradigm shift in attitudes over night. 

Also the idea that designer niches are coexisting peacefully in other herp/amphib hobbies is debatable at best. I'm sure it would depend on who you asked, and chances are since most of those ships sailed long ago most in the hobby never knew a different way and/or just cope best they can because they have to.

Also it isn't myself and other reasonably well informed and experienced people I'm worried about the most. It is newbies and the damage their ignorance or lack of caring will do to our pure lines, and issues like buyer's remorse that we'he already seen happen. Its strange to me that you can empathize with the designer frog crowd but not the people who have already been negatively effected by our new friends.

You are failing to grasp the implications of your own arguments, nor have you offered us much reason to believe your sesperate but equal designer niche can coexist peacefully without removing frogs from our already limited founder populations, or causing the myriad of other problems we've discussed in these threads.

For your frog utopia to exist there would need to be a massive paradigm shift in attitude and action, and you and the few others that have argued for it have just not been particularly effective, so it probably isn't happening.... anytime soon, and thank Gawd for that because probably the only way it could happen without major damage is if it happened very very very slowly and the people running that niche actually had decent ethics... but we already have plenty of evidence that they don't. Is that what we can expect from the future people who follow in their footsteps? ...Why risk it? ...have yet to see convincing arguments that justify the risk, (and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. *Plus if you actually want people to take you seriously and convince them you are going to have to address their concerns even if you don't buy into them*).


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

P.S. 

Here is a way in which this whole hybrid/designer fiasco will effect some of us...

I and others I'm sure want some of the species/morphs the first family of frankenfrogs are selling but now beyond just dodging people that might rip me off or sell me unhealthy frogs, I have to be very careful to make sure anything I buy didn't pass through their hands because if it did and people get wind of it I will be stuck with devalued frogs and possibly my reputation could take a hit (and future sales) if I or otbers are percieved to be connected to the frankenfrog family.

That annoys me. That is more effort I have to put forth, and more risk I have to endure because of their actions. Also annoys me that since any frogs that pass through their hands will be considered tainted that I and others will have less frogs to work with to perpetuate that population in captivity.

Those are real and valid ways in which their actions can and will effect myself and others... and it renders your wishful thought of a separate but equal designer frog niche and it having no effect on us as...*VOID*.

Sure I will likely be able to navigate this new landscape and avoid most of the risk, but real and/or imagined the risk is there (yes even imagined risk can have consequences): but will less informed and less experienced people fair so well?

Oh that's right, they will just get what is coming to them because the hobby didn't get widespread adoption of frog tracking before that person even joined the hobby... bummer for them.


----------



## Encyclia (Aug 23, 2013)

Dendro Dave said:


> P.S.
> 
> Here is a way in which this whole hybrid/designer fiasco will effect some of us...
> 
> ...


I don't know the literature well enough to participate in the science end of all of these arguments, but this, more than anything else I have seen, is what bothers me about the pro-hybrid argument. All of this is moot if people didn't make mistakes and had scruples. I think we all know, though, that mistakes will be made and people will actively lie to get their frogs sold and, eventually those of us who care will all wonder whether our own collections have been compromised by animals we acquired after the great hybrid revolution started. One outgrowth of this is that there will be a jump in desire to go to the only source where we can be (relatively) sure that the genes are wild type - the wild. This will add pressure to legal and illegal exportation of animals. This is bad :-( 

I have a real problem with the argument that hybrids will be separate and have no impact on those who want to keep their lines pure. It puts an unfair (and potentially large) burden on those who like the hobby the way it is and prefer to keep non-hybrid animals. I think that this push for hybrid animals is covered by the old John B. Finch quote "...your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins." 

I would like to *ask*, not "bully", anyone that is considering producing hybrids not to do it. I think it will be bad for the hobby and for the environment in the long run.

Mark


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Roadrunner said:


> I just don't see why this whole thing has to be about how YOU are affected while leaving the way THEY are affected out. You can both live in harmony, YOU choose not to. Everyone can have their way, YOU just can't see that. You can do what you want without including them on your goal of maintaining teh frogs pure that YOU find "valuable" and let them maintain what they find "valuable".



...except the thread is "Why the big deal with Hybridizing?" You've spent the last 10 posts or so telling people they should keep their opinion to themselves on a thread that was _asking for opinions_. 

Also, for someone who requires extremely specific proof before making a judgement, you certainly seem to make a lot of unprovable statements about current breeding practices (you guys are inbreeding to a point that outbreeding will be past an option if needed to save a morph) and future hobby dynamics (Everyone can have their way). In fact I've mentioned several times in other threads examples of how in the past anytime a specific "morph's" lineage comes into question it disappears from collections soon afterward. Are those historical examples not specific enough to overturn your hunch-based conclusions?


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> Have we done this for just having frogs in captivity? There are risks for introducing non native pathogens at least this only incurs risk to the individual frog. In just breeding the frogs ,whether inbreeding hybridizing or randomly breeding you incur the same risk of mutations. In hybridizing you incur the same risk of developing a frog that is better genetically suited to it's environment. If it's a statistically barely significant risk by hybridizing, your incurring more risk by only feeding fruitflies. Not a large enough proven risk to be significant. Again you guys are inbreeding to a point that outbreeding will be past an option if needed to save a morph.



So, if I'm understanding you correctly, there are risks with everything we do, and because we are already taking risk, we should just do what we want regardless of the risk. Is that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Celtic Aaron said:


> So, if I'm understanding you correctly, there are risks with everything we do, and because we are already taking risk, we should just do what we want regardless of the risk. Is that right?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Exactly, it's a glass house fallacy. We can't criticize people who hybridize because, insert red herring/straw man.

Not to mention that I'm sure a lot of people commenting make considerable effort to avoid some of the issues that have been addressed here. Ironically, I'm willing to bet many of us would rail just as vehemently if the topic was "what is the big deal with "insert Roadrunner red herring here".


----------



## brendan0923 (Sep 15, 2014)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Exactly, it's a glass house fallacy. We can't criticize people who hybridize because, insert red herring/straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that I'm sure a lot of people commenting make considerable effort to avoid some of the issues that have been addressed here. Ironically, I'm willing to bet many of us would rail just as vehemently if the topic was "what is the big deal with "insert Roadrunner red herring here".



I agree. Since when do two wrongs make a right? I fail to see how hybridizing would improve the current situation within the hobby.

Not only this, but I don't see anybody denying the fact that inbreeding is a problem. Quite the opposite actually, as I and many others have conceded to the issue of inbreeding several times, yet the same argument is being made over and over again. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Roadrunner said:


> ... You can each do your own little thing in this world without ever intersecting, just buy the frogs you want from teh people you want to who haven't bought from them and they can buy from whoever they want since they don't have the same standards. This is really kindergarten stuff here.


Kindergarten... You mean where most people learn that their actions can effect others, or other's actions can effect them? ...Ya I got kicked out, but I was there long enough to learn that much... What's your excuse?


----------



## KCS2015 (Oct 28, 2015)

Ok here is an opinion from someone who is also new to the PDF scene and who is totally against hybridization. First, I used to keep a reef tank but had to break it down to health problems and money. Hybridization is frowned upon there too. In the case of frogs, corals, fish etc science is still finding new species left and right! They just found an entirely new reef possibly bigger than the barrier reef. The likelihood of new species is high to say the least. Same with dart frogs. They are indeed finding more of them as more exploration is done. The point? We should be looking to research the behaviors of UNMODIFIED bloodlines. Also their colors are so striking that I feel we need to leave them alone. Not to mention the unscrupulous out there, who sadly waaaayyyyy outnumber responsible, caring hobbyists who are truly vested in the animals' welfare, these people will sell these as a new "morph" which in the PDF world means a natural occurring (not line bred) morph from a precise locale. Then they get bred back to good stock and we lose that line to the four winds. Now the hybrids themselves are usually a downgrade in every respect! These are not parakeets, these are dart frogs! Just a couple reasons I can think of right off the top of my head.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

First off, no one has proven that it would be a problem to hybridize. No one has proven that hybrids weren't even the first groups of darts bred since auratus were just green and blacks. and leucs were just leucs and trivis, etc. So to say that purebreds have the default is wrong.
And Ed is the one who said that after a certain inbreeding point, outcrossing doesn't work. Now I'm being faulted for believing something he said?, can't win here.
What it comes down to is a small group deciding policy for the whole hobby even when the words are here from teh people who began the hobby. They set up tracking systems and specifically mentioned hybrids wouldn't be a problem if people tracked. So this group, with no proof, decides to outcast people for their choice of buying or producing hybrids, then blames them whether they sell them outright or not, knowing well that they are going to infiltrate worse if tehy are not "allowed".
Some people talk the talk and then want others to walk for them.
The only way to prove that hybridizing is any worse than the way your breeding them now is to breed pure pairs and hybrids side by side for a few generations of different types(because different crosses will have different results) and see. My prediction, esp since some darts are pretty inbred, is that some will perform better and others will not and you'll not see a statistical significance either way. 
Considering gut biome, nutrition, env conditions and niche amongst many other things play such an important part in the health of the frogs I surmise genetics will probably not be a significant variable in teh systems we have them in now.


----------



## Celtic Aaron (Jun 12, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> First off, no one has proven that it would be a problem to hybridize. No one has proven that hybrids weren't even the first groups of darts bred since auratus were just green and blacks. and leucs were just leucs and trivis, etc. So to say that purebreds have the default is wrong.
> 
> And Ed is the one who said that after a certain inbreeding point, outcrossing doesn't work. Now I'm being faulted for believing something he said?, can't win here.
> 
> ...



Is there a reason you are resurrecting this thread after no involvement for quite a while? Are you bored? This is the Same old argument that has been rebutted for quite some time now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

