# Are Darts Better Off in the Wild or in Viv?



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I wonder on a strict production and true average lifespan (meaning darts CAN live decades in the wild if not eaten or the like, but often don't) standpoint if Darts are better off in the wild or in viv. I wonder how many froglets a single pair of darts can produce in the wild compared to an in-viv pair. The reason I ask is due to the number of posts stating that they are better off in the wild. Predation and the like not often happening in-viv. I'm sure genetics will come in here :wink: .

Rich


----------



## hopalong (Sep 19, 2005)

Are there any records of wild production etc? I think we just assume that any animal is better off in its natural habitat verses something man-made and small. What is the amount of space they use in the wild? Are our tanks even close? 

Then again, living in the wild wasn't what it was 20 years ago...

So are we saying that a happy frog is a breeding frog? Is the opposite true?


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

This is hardly my area of expertise, but I suspect that typical viv conditions (little temperature variability and constant humidity, etc) keep in-viv pairs in an almost constant breeding phase, exacerbated by the practice of pulling eggs for artificial rearing. If we could more consistently recreate breeding seasonality in the viv, that might more closely approximate 'in wild' conditions, but I really don't know enough about the subject to say for certain.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

hopalong said:


> Are there any records of wild production etc? I think we just assume that any animal is better off in its natural habitat verses something man-made and small. What is the amount of space they use in the wild? Are our tanks even close?
> 
> Then again, living in the wild wasn't what it was 20 years ago...
> 
> So are we saying that a happy frog is a breeding frog? Is the opposite true?


Not sure on the records but maybe someone has info on populations in the wild growing or shrinking. 
Happy can't be measured. Alive, I like.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

flyangler18 said:


> This is hardly my area of expertise, but I suspect that typical viv conditions (little temperature variability and constant humidity, etc) keep in-viv pairs in an almost constant breeding phase, exacerbated by the practice of pulling eggs for artificial rearing. If we could more consistently recreate breeding seasonality in the viv, that might more closely approximate 'in wild' conditions, but I really don't know enough about the subject to say for certain.


Constant temps can and do cycle many darts down , not up. And we can and do (some) recreate temps, misting and such.
What I am touching on is this. Are our populations of certain Darts growing (due to breeding, not importing) faster in captivity that in the wild ?

Rich


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Populations in general are shrinking, I believe. I've heard a couple accounts on pumilio on there no longer being frogs in areas where they were abundant.

I would guess that they are better off in the wild simply because they don't have the added stresses of having people staring in at them, being in a confined space, being with other frogs that they may not like, etc. Predation is probably as rare as it is in captivity.

I don't know if it's been recorded, but I would guess that occurrences of SLS is much lower in the wild, which would cut down on juvenile mortality.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Populations in general are shrinking, I believe. I've heard a couple accounts on pumilio on there no longer being frogs in areas where they were abundant.
> 
> I would guess that they are better off in the wild simply because they don't have the added stresses of having people staring in at them, being in a confined space, being with other frogs that they may not like, etc. Predation is probably as rare as it is in captivity.
> 
> I don't know if it's been recorded, but I would guess that occurrences of SLS is much lower in the wild, which would cut down on juvenile mortality.


All things equal. If a population is growing in one spot and shrinking in another which is the best spot to live?

I personally have produced two froglets that I 'knew' had SLS.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Maybe we should throw things like disease, predation, habitat destruction, crazy weather patterns and the like.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

IMO, the whole topic is moot due to lack of information. I'm not sure pages of 1000 word posts (my conjecture of what will happen soon enough) will really glean anything useful.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

NOT to be confused with the ' Anecdotal VS. Fact' thread.
99% of the threads do not revolve around hard facts.

Rich


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

I don't think we can even come to reasonable assumptions with this topic. There's also a lack of scope, are we discussing macro or micro? I'll go further in depth when I get home.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

^
Let me make this simpler to start. Is there potential for a single pair of darts in the wild or in captivity to produce more and live an average longer life?
An example. How many frogs will be produced, that live past two years, in average from ten clutches of darts we keep in captivity versus in the wild? Has anyone studied egg, tad, froglet, and frog mortality rates in the wild? If not, maybe someone should.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

I agree with Mike I guess, I don't see much to gleam, but I always find Riches topics fun to follow, for a wide variety of reasons. :twisted: 

Ethically, a healthy wild population is always my choice. What could compare to that?

But there are a whole list of would ifs? Is a lion happier in the wild? Probably. but is it safer in a zoo if the alternative is a shrinking habitat with poachers, maybe. So there are pros and cons. But bottom line for me, a healthy thriving wild population cannot be out done ever, and can only even come close to being similar if we are willing to do much much more for our frogs. Giant green house anyone?


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Rich Frye said:


> Let me make this simpler to start. Is there potential for a single pair of darts in the wild or in captivity to produce more and live an average longer life?


Posted before I saw this. Breed more? Probably, less henderances. Live longer? I have no idea. Seems that there are not too many 10+ year frogs in the hobby, but maybe that is because so many of us have less than a few years in it ourselves.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I guess I should explain my train of thought a bit better. I read stuff like 'our frogs would be much better off in the wild than in little glass cubes' and the like and wondered if this is really true. In MY mind alive is better off than dead. And if the production rate and true lifespan is bigger and longer in captivity I would say they are 'better off' in captivity. True lifespan being the average lifespan from once the froglet crawls out of the water until death.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> Is there potential for a single pair of darts in the wild or in captivity to produce more and live an average longer life?
> An example. How many frogs will be produced, that live past two years, in average from ten clutches of darts we keep in captivity versus in the wild? Has anyone studied egg, tad, froglet, and frog mortality rates in the wild?


Excellent, a concise scope... too bad I still think we have to make too many assumptions for even discussing it. I can say as an unsuccessful frog breeder, that they (my frog's offspring) would probably better off in the wild. However if you take a successful frog breeder, then the story would likely be different. 

I think we'd have to look at the population trend of wild vs captive to see how the adult population is reacting to the living conditions. Mortality rate is only half of the equation. In captivity I have no doubt we kill a staggering number of frogs, but we're also pretty good a keeping them alive and building a captive population - barring things like popularity trends. In short, we don't know wild vs captive and likely never will - there's simply too much information needed to model reality. 



> I read stuff like 'our frogs would be much better off in the wild than in little glass cubes' and the like and wondered if this is really true.


From observing many a people, in my experience, we (humans) romanticize the unknown and the past. We don't know what a frog's life is like in the wild, thus we think is it is better than a glass box.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I think the question should be, is the wild better off with frogs in the wild or in our vivs. I would be shocked, absolutely flabergasted, if pdf do not have the potential to produce many, many, times more surviving offspring in our vivaria than in the wild. I say "potential" because for some groups like egg feeders, I don't think we are matching even the wild reality, let alone the potential, in our vivs. But for the species that breed well for us, hands down the vivarium is going to be more conducive to that combination of fecundity and survivorship we call population growth.

But a frog in a vivarium does not do the things that frogs do in the wild. It is not contributing to the ecosystem processes that make wild places iteresting places to visit, and critical places to maintain to support life on earth.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Well think about it. If 4 frogs lived for every pair producing you`d get population doubling every year and the planet would fill up w/ dart frogs in a couple 100 years or so(sorry, no time to do concise estimmates, this is just off the top of my head). In a stable population they stay around the same #`s meaning only 2 survive to adulthood to breed for every pair out there. The populations living in areas marked for destruction for hotels roads etc. are better off in a viv. If cared for correctly.
I know there are some old men in prison but do they like it that way.
What if you were born into captivity and you didn`t know any better, would you be happy? My frogs try to escape w/ the final conclusion is death. Are they just anxious to explore or is it just natural for them to try and hop away from big animals like us? Even if we feed them. I have frogs that go for my hand when I go in to feed. I`ll tell you there are some that are more "conducive" to a smaller captive environment such as animals that don`t jump far w/ great force and darts are better off then leopards or bullfrogs in captivity.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Well think about it. If 4 frogs lived for every pair producing you`d get population doubling every year and the planet would fill up w/ dart frogs in a couple 100 years or so(sorry, no time to do concise estimmates, this is just off the top of my head). In a stable population they stay around the same #`s meaning only 2 survive to adulthood to breed for every pair out there.


BINGO! 



> The populations living in areas marked for destruction for hotels roads etc. are better off in a viv. If cared for correctly.


I'd have to qualify this a lot. It's something I see used as an excuse for collection. But many populations can persist, even thrive, following habitat disturbance. For example, heliconias colonizing a new roadside could be a windfall for the resident pumilio. It all depends on the nature of the construction, and the characteristics of the population. Now if you want to step back from looking at the whole population, and just say the frogs that would be squished by bulldozers would be better off in vivs, I couldn't argue with that.



> My frogs try to escape w/ the final conclusion is death. Are they just anxious to explore or is it just natural for them to try and hop away from big animals like us? Even if we feed them.


I can't resist adding this. Years ago I was browsing some 19th century newspapers in a small town in Kansas. I came across a blurb in one paper: "Joe Smith's wife ran away on Sunday, but she was recaptured on Monday."


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> frogfarm said:
> 
> 
> > Well think about it. If 4 frogs lived for every pair producing you`d get population doubling every year and the planet would fill up w/ dart frogs in a couple 100 years or so(sorry, no time to do concise estimmates, this is just off the top of my head). In a stable population they stay around the same #`s meaning only 2 survive to adulthood to breed for every pair out there.
> ...


BINGO ...yes , yes. :wink: 
About 95% of the frogs I work with (about 50% being pums) will out produce wild populations. Meaning more live frogs. And I would say that many froggers I know are also out producing considering that two frogs produced (number-wise) are needed for the life of the parents. Two.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Now if you want to step back from looking at the whole population, and just say the frogs that would be squished by bulldozers would be better off in vivs, I couldn't argue with that.


....or frogs done in by cow pastures....


----------



## FrogOly (Oct 5, 2007)

Some of the darts, and most of the mantellas, natural habitat is disappearing rapidly. Those frogs at least have a chance of some form of survival in captivity.

Some captive care is a lot better than others. If I had to guess, I would say the best captive setup is at least equal in the quality of life as the wild. Depending on the state of a natural habitat, and of a particular viv it could alternately exist in it most likely equals out in the long run. 

What I wonder is how well would captive bred frogs acclimate to the wild, and compare that to the opposite with wild caught frogs in captivity. Is there a higher survival rate with one group over the other, and why?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> [ I know are also out producing considering that two frogs produced (number-wise) are needed for the life of the parents. Two.


Well.... It's a lot more complicated than that. A lot more. You have to look at the age structure of the population and the dynamics of habitat change. Many populations actually persist as metapopulations so that when a sub population blinks out in one habitat fragment, it is recolonized from individuals immigrating from another fragment. To make this work, it means surplus animals must be produced in source habitats to occupy the sink habitats. And that's not too much different from the hobby. We have sources and sinks, no question. But what we can say is that if the overall population is stable, then births are roughly equalling deaths. But in most cases, if every breeding pair just chugged along at a replacement rate of 2 surviving offspring per generation, they would go extinct. And a lot of things that depend on frogs for food would also go extinct. So there are many complexities built into this simple assumption. 

A better way to look at it would be to measure secondary production of frogs in captivity vs. in the wild. Secondary production is simply the amount of biomass of consumers (or some subset of consumers) produced over a given time. In this case, I think the species of captive frogs that breed well would still outperform the production in the wild, but the gap would be narrower. And I'll bet only a handful of pumilio pairs in captivity would match the secondary production of their wild counterparts.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

FrogOly said:


> Some of the darts, and most of the mantellas, natural habitat is disappearing rapidly. Those frogs at least have a chance of some form of survival in captivity.


I have never really bought that argument because I think it is usually used as a rationalization to purchase animals that would better be left alone. It's doubly hard for me to agree that capturing doomed populations to put into the pet trade is a big win for anyone. If a population or species is truly at risk of being lost from the world, it would be better for them to go into true conservation breeding programs rather than the haphazard management of the hobby IMO.



> What I wonder is how well would captive bred frogs acclimate to the wild, and compare that to the opposite with wild caught frogs in captivity. Is there a higher survival rate with one group over the other, and why?


Good question. I think there are plenty of data to indicate there is a pretty high mortality rate anytime you move animals from the wild to captivity or vice versa. They are getting a lot better at being able to capture and ship frogs with lower mortality but I question whether the long-term survival rates of wc have increased significantly overall. And reintroducing captive animals to the wild is always fraught with challenges for a wide variety of reasons. In some cases, reintroductions from captive stock can go quite well. In some cases they are a complete failure. And others are in between.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

How high are wild mortality rates of pumilio? They seem to be a highly K. selected species that while they may be abundant I think this is due to them being excellent competitors and also low mortality due to being poisonous. I'd have trouble believing they can reproduce rapidly to colonize new areas the way many frogs can. Yet, they seem to do well in disturbed areas, more so than, say, auratus.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

> But many populations can persist, even thrive, following habitat disturbance. For example, heliconias colonizing a new roadside could be a windfall for the resident pumilio. It all depends on the nature of the construction, and the characteristics of the population.


Aren't the auratus in the Manoa Valley of Oahu most commonly found to associate with human trash and debris (e.g. tadpole deposition in collected water found in cans, etc.)? But that's an interesting situation: a species adapts to an environment in which it did not evolve in, but then is able to adapt to aspects of the environment that have undergone such decline (or, could it be considered enhanced as the debris actually creates previously limited deposition sites?). 

I guess my point is this: some of these animals are hardier and more adaptive than we sometimes give them credit for.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

skysdale: True. But in Central America pumilio dominate the disturbed areas while auratus tend to live in the more remote places. Pumilio with their eggfeeding allows them to use small and perhaps nutritionally poor bodies of water auratus might not be able to use.


----------



## FrogOly (Oct 5, 2007)

*bbrock wrote:*



> I have never really bought that argument because I think it is usually used as a rationalization to purchase animals that would better be left alone. It's doubly hard for me to agree that capturing doomed populations to put into the pet trade is a big win for anyone. If a population or species is truly at risk of being lost from the world, it would be better for them to go into true conservation breeding programs rather than the haphazard management of the hobby IMO.



I agree, and I would be one that is nowhere near qualified, to care for those types of frogs(yet  ) I think a progression from the conservation programs to qualified ASN stewards and peers, to average hobbiests, if and when surplus animals became available would be the most logical way handle these types of situations.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> ... In MY mind alive is better off than dead. ...


So are you saying alive in an 8x10 prison cell (assuming a nice prison with no ass raping, etc. going on) is better than living free and dying young?

Personally I'd rather live free with the risk of dying a little young than being kept alive in a cell, but that's just me.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 8, 2006)

hasn't it been pretty much proven and stated by many books and zoos that animals in captivity will easily outlive there wild counterparts due to having a controlled environment compared to an uncontrolled one? in captivity, the animals get fed, cared for when sick, matched with mates, and theres no opposing animals. in the wild animals have to hunt for there food, attract mates, defend themselves, get sick, etc. theres a lot more work and stresses in the wild that would shorten an animals lifespan.

yea, theres the person looking in at the animal issue, but many (if not all) animals will eventually associate that people = food.


of course, this doesn't mean the animals are actually HAPPIER in captivity though.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> hasn't it been pretty much proven and stated by many books and zoos that animals in captivity will easily outlive there wild counterparts due to having a controlled environment compared to an uncontrolled one? in captivity, the animals get fed, cared for when sick, matched with mates, and theres no opposing animals. in the wild animals have to hunt for there food, attract mates, defend themselves, get sick, etc. theres a lot more work and stresses in the wild that would shorten an animals lifespan.
> 
> yea, theres the person looking in at the animal issue, but many (if not all) animals will eventually associate that people = food.


Yes, as what happens w/ society but how many people are truly happy going to doctors, living w/ back pain, being reliant on a gov`t to "protect" you. personally I`d rather be in the mountains somewhere w/ a "real" community of people battling against nature(and not always winning/destroying our env) than living under what I live under now. I have a choice and I choose captivity because I`ve become lazy. I`ve chose a life between the 2 but get not the fulfillment of the "wild". Boredom, depression etc. all stem from the extra time and choice associated w/ not living a "survival" lifestyle. Some People seem to do fine w/ it. Are they better off/happy? For some maybe yes, for some maybe no.
Maybe that`s why we see the difference in breeding fecundity in animals/pairs kept under relatively similar conditions.
So far my Pumilio pairs have been producing 2-9 offspring every 2-3 months, avg being 4. survival to adulthood? I don`t keep them that long but they leave here fine. I`m pretty sure wild pairs couldn`t keep up w/ my production rate on even egg feeders. We have the ability, unfortunately money is god. I really believe I could, given the space and resources( like co-workers here from db) make a facility that could save and grow exponentially literally filling the world w/ frogs again w/in 20-30 years :lol: 
Sorry, the winds have got me a bit wierd today. :lol:


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

rmelancon said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > ... In MY mind alive is better off than dead. ...
> ...


Well, if you want to make that analogy I guess you would have to show me a person keeping darts in a 2"x4" thimble with no chance of breeding and then I would agree. I stated early this was concerned with breeding mostly.
I will go on the record for the umpteenth time by saying I like to make as big a viv as possible.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

generally, taking out the oops left the top off the lid, yes they can definately outproduce , with a high survival rate since none become food, their wild counterparts 1000fold for genus` such as epis and phylos. Even azureus and imitators can produce over 365 eggs in a year. I once got clutches of 17, 16 and 17 in 8 days from 1 pair of terribilis, that`s 50 eggs in a week. That`s about 2,200 offspring max in a year. That`s a definate yes.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> > hasn't it been pretty much proven and stated by many books and zoos that animals in captivity will easily outlive there wild counterparts due to having a controlled environment compared to an uncontrolled one? in captivity, the animals get fed, cared for when sick, matched with mates, and theres no opposing animals. in the wild animals have to hunt for there food, attract mates, defend themselves, get sick, etc. theres a lot more work and stresses in the wild that would shorten an animals lifespan.
> >
> > yea, theres the person looking in at the animal issue, but many (if not all) animals will eventually associate that people = food.
> 
> ...


Hear hear. People often ask why I chose to live in the sticks (which is not nearly as far into the sticks as I would perfer). I tell them I would rather shoot myself than have to live in town. Been there, done that.



> So far my Pumilio pairs have been producing 2-9 offspring every 2-3 months, avg being 4. survival to adulthood? I don`t keep them that long but they leave here fine. I`m pretty sure wild pairs couldn`t keep up w/ my production rate on even egg feeders.


It's because of you, Rich, and a couple others that I qualified my satement with "most" eggfeeders are performing less well in captivity. Actually I will bet that this production rate is closer to what is happening in the wild. Studies have shown their fecundity is limited by the number of available phytotelmata but they clearly have large reproductive potential in the wild. From what I've seen, most people are thrilled if they can get 2-3 pumilio froglets reared in a year. But they are capable of far more than that. I think my pair has now produced 14 offspring since May and I've actually lost count. We are getting better at them, but I'd be surprised if the hobby wide average is still not well below reproduction in the wild.

Not surpisingly, one of the difficulties of using breeding/reproduction as the only measure of "better off" is that it sets up the argument to automatically judge captivity as "better". But as we've seen, there are many more criteria for better than just producing offspring. And again, a frog in a glass box in my living room makes absolutely no contribution to the pageant of life in nature that makes our world tick.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> frogfarm said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, as what happens w/ society but how many people are truly happy going to doctors, living w/ back pain, being reliant on a gov`t to "protect" you. personally I`d rather be in the mountains somewhere w/ a "real" community of people battling against nature(and not always winning/destroying our env) than living under what I live under now.
> ...


I really didn't expect that we would stick to breeding only as a yard stick :wink: . That's why my opening post brought up genetics. And I am surprised nobody has hit on that side of captivity. 
A glass box in my basement lets my nephews , friends, neighbors, whomever I show view these jewels and may just get them interested in a few of the external aspects of the hobby  .


----------



## AlexF (Sep 26, 2007)

Do frogs have happy emotions? if so, how do we know if the outside frogs are happy, and if the confined ones aren't.

Supposing the captive frogs are happy because they have everything they need, but have never been in the wild, so how could they know if they be happier out in the open.

Here in Mexico there is an isolated island that holds several hundred prisoners. Most are in for long term. 

In the island they are not confined but by the ocean, they have their families with them, can see friends (inmates or their families), can work if they want, can learn new skills.

When they are done, there is usually a problem because they don't want to leave the island. One of the reasons is because their lives is in that confined area that provides everything to them and they have spent so much time in that it has become their life, and because freedom is uncertain to them, and that creates lots of stress.

If we apply this example to frogs, I would say they are happy wherever they are if they are adapted and their needs are taken care off. Now following this line of thought, a WC frog would not be that happy confined.


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> rmelancon said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Rich Frye":1h124p2h] ... In MY mind alive is better off than dead. ...
> ...


Well, if you want to make that analogy I guess you would have to show me a person keeping darts in a 2"x4" thimble with no chance of breeding and then I would agree. I stated early this was concerned with breeding mostly.
I will go on the record for the umpteenth time by saying I like to make as big a viv as possible.[/quote:1h124p2h]

Make it 800x1000 cell my view doesn't change. A giant viv can't really be compared to an open rainforest. The downside to this argument is assuming that frogs can be "happy" and "sad" to begin with. We often use anthropomorphisms that are false pretenses to begin with. So just because I'm not "happy" in confinement, do frogs even know the difference? I don't think we can really answer that question. Nor can we say frogs "enjoy" breeding like we do.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

rmelancon said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > rmelancon said:
> ...


Make it 800x1000 cell my view doesn't change. A giant viv can't really be compared to an open rainforest. The downside to this argument is assuming that frogs can be "happy" and "sad" to begin with. We often use anthropomorphisms that are false pretenses to begin with. So just because I'm not "happy" in confinement, do frogs even know the difference? I don't think we can really answer that question. Nor can we say frogs "enjoy" breeding like we do.[/quote:15dy9lq4]

Exactly. Which is why I went with 'best off'. And the 'alive vs. dead' stance.

Rich


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Ok, so based strictly on alive vs dead... taking chytrid out of the equation as that pretty much trumps any argument, but leaving in the rest (predation, etc)... I'm still going with rainforest winning overall in breeding and "aliveness". For single instances/animals you may have better breeding and live longer, but I think over time if you could take multiple animals and do comparisons, I think natual habitat would win.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

For at least one animal, azureus, how many animals make up founding stock and how many breeders are out there? They`ve never been imported in #`s and even w/ limited blood out there I don`t think they`ll ever be in jeapordy of falling out of the hobby while a fire in the dry season may be able to wipe them clean in the wild, unless they can adapt to the savannah left in the aftermath.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> For at least one animal, azureus, how many animals make up founding stock and how many breeders are out there? They`ve never been imported in #`s


I think even species that have been imported in large numbers often are reduced to only a very few founders that establish the captive blood lines. I suspect that individuals in many of the "lines" in the hobby are much more related to each other than their import numbers and captive population size might suggest.



> and even w/ limited blood out there I don`t think they`ll ever be in jeapordy of falling out of the hobby while a fire in the dry season may be able to wipe them clean in the wild, unless they can adapt to the savannah left in the aftermath.


Of course this bleeds into the topic of domestication because if the goal is to maintain a species in captivity in perpetuity, you need to be comfortable that eventually the captive species will no long be the same species that was obtained fom the wild. Dogs, for an extreme example. And this shift occurs much faster if you don't manage genes within a coordinated breeding program designed to conserve genetic integrity. Yeah, I'm pushing ASN again :wink:


----------



## dafunk5446 (Nov 12, 2007)

The wild would of course be a better place, since this is where they came from. But since man is so good at destroying the enviroment, I think these animals will start disappearing at a much faster rate in the near future. So captive bred stock is needed, and we all need to do our part to keep these animals alive.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

dafunk5446 said:


> The wild would of course be a better place, since this is where they came from. But since man is so good at destroying the enviroment, I think these animals will start disappearing at a much faster rate in the near future. So captive bred stock is needed, and we all need to do our part to keep these animals alive.


Except that the majority of the species we keep are among the least imperiled in the wild.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

So is it a general consensus that most morphs we have here do not produce two offspring in their lifetime? Essentially most frogs that come in don't breed before dieing?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> Except that the majority of the species we keep are among the least imperiled in the wild.
> _________________


Gotta start somewhere, we can`t keep track of them all. Once they are threatened or endangered we have no chance at them anymore. 
We need some sort of central location for our info on what may be in jeopardy and how or where to get it, habitat and climate, etc.
 
sorry, had to plug that.
Basically, yes, they are better in the wild, at this point because on full out avg. more people kill their frogs than breed them.
As more people get in and stay in and have the basics like emergency food, common knowledge of care and backup power.
It`s true, back when I started breed mints abuot 10 - 11 years ago there were about 5 people breeding them (christina hanson/todd kelley, brad murray, dave hulmes and the guys who were selling the misting system and anthony hundt, I think). How many people are still breeding them? I put hundreds and hundreds out there.
Same w/ orange bicolor. I was producing 14 a week for a long time and sean and I are the only people I see selling them.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Gotta start somewhere, we can`t keep track of them all. Once they are threatened or endangered we have no chance at them anymore.
> We need some sort of central location for our info on what may be in jeopardy and how or where to get it, habitat and climate, etc.
> 
> sorry, had to plug that.


Thanks for the plug. I made that snide comment because we frequently see this argument that because habitat is being destroyed in the wild, it is actually a good thing to collect wild frogs and bring them into captivity to "save" them. That's just a silly argument to me. Especially when we look at the species that are being justified to be collected. How does capturing animals that AREN'T threatened by habitat loss help those species that really are? Just me being crabby again. I do realize that isn't what was intended by the original comment though. 



> Basically, yes, they are better in the wild, at this point because on full out avg. more people kill their frogs than breed them.


Yes, which is in keeping with Robb's post earlier. We can pretty much agree that maximum lifespan and reproductive potential are higher in captivity. But "maximum" and "potential" are the key words. The actual lifespand and reproduction in captivity tends to be way, way, lower. For some species reproduction overall may actually be higher in captivity than in the wild. For the majority of them it is not though. And I doubt the average lifespan is much higher in captivity either.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Yes, which is in keeping with Robb's post earlier. We can pretty much agree that maximum lifespan and reproductive potential are higher in captivity. But "maximum" and "potential" are the key words. The actual lifespand and reproduction in captivity tends to be way, way, lower. For some species reproduction overall may actually be higher in captivity than in the wild. For the majority of them it is not though. And I doubt the average lifespan is much higher in captivity either.


I think this is an assumption that may be invalid when compared on a broad scale.... however with respect to egg feeders its probably correct. 

For example, in the wild D. (azureus) tinctorius in the wild has an estimated lifespan of about 3-6 years with the females reaching sexual maturity at about 2 years. (see http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... ureus.html )

Ed


----------



## Bocomo (Nov 21, 2007)

Unless the animal is domesticated then it is better off in the wild. 

Since habitats for the frogs in the wild are disappearing every minute our little vivs may not be that bad.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> bbrock said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, which is in keeping with Robb's post earlier. We can pretty much agree that maximum lifespan and reproductive potential are higher in captivity. But "maximum" and "potential" are the key words. The actual lifespand and reproduction in captivity tends to be way, way, lower. For some species reproduction overall may actually be higher in captivity than in the wild. For the majority of them it is not though. And I doubt the average lifespan is much higher in captivity either.
> ...


How does that invalidate what I wrote?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Yes, which is in keeping with Robb's post earlier. We can pretty much agree that maximum lifespan and reproductive potential are higher in captivity. But "maximum" and "potential" are the key words. The actual lifespand and reproduction in captivity tends to be way, way, lower. For some species reproduction overall may actually be higher in captivity than in the wild. For the majority of them it is not though. And I doubt the average lifespan is much higher in captivity either.


The part I was referring to was the comment about average life span in captivity versus wild.... (for an outdated reference check out Slaven's page for auratus (for one example) http://www.pondturtle.com/lfrog.html#Dendrobates 

Ed


----------



## dafunk5446 (Nov 12, 2007)

BBrock, I think you miss took my statement. I wasnt meaning a 13 year old girl with 2 auratus are helping solve the problem of frog population decline. I also wasnt meaning the average hobbiest is helping the problem. Like you said MOST of the species we keep are not in danger. It is the more rare species that a few select people keep that are the ones I was meaning. These people who keep them are usually trying to breed them. It is the scientists, zoo's, and more advanced hobbiests that will make a difference. Sorry if this statement is made often, but if climate patterns continue to change, a lot of these frogs will be lost. At least we will have "saved" a small portion of these frogs.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> The part I was referring to was the comment about average life span in captivity versus wild.... (for an outdated reference check out Slaven's page for auratus (for one example) http://www.pondturtle.com/lfrog.html#Dendrobates
> 
> Ed


I thought that was it. I stand by my comment. I don't think those figures likely reflect the true average lifespan in captivity at all. I think those reflect the average lifespan in competent hands. But if we consider all of the captive frogs produced, it seems clear that a large proportion of them are not surviving even to reproductive age. So those have to be included in the estimate as well.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

dafunk5446 said:


> BBrock, I think you miss took my statement. I wasnt meaning a 13 year old girl with 2 auratus are helping solve the problem of frog population decline. I also wasnt meaning the average hobbiest is helping the problem.


Yeah, I actually did know what you meant and sorry if that comment seemed directed at you. It was intended to be toward anyone who may construe that argument as justification for buying wc frogs. Which I have seen people do before. And I am a supporter of real conservation breeding efforts. Were I not, I wouldn't have been so active in helping to start ASN.


----------



## dafunk5446 (Nov 12, 2007)

K glad we cleared that up. I agree completly with you on people using that as an excuse to buy wc frogs. The average person should not be allowed to purchase wc's of ANY species of animal. I see this same problem a lot with coral in the saltwater industry. But I also believe that a small number should be removed, purely for the need of saving species, and should only be giving to experts in the field.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

dafunk5446 said:


> The average person should not be allowed to purchase wc's of ANY species of animal.


Why? And what is 'the average person' in your mind?

Rich


----------



## dafunk5446 (Nov 12, 2007)

The average person I am talking about is a person who will keep a couple and have no real interest in breeding them. These frogs are meant as pets. We should not be taking species out of the wild at anytime unless it is for a very good reason. there are more then enough captive bred species available to the public. The more species we remove the less of a sizeable breeding population is left in the wild. I would consider myself one of the people who should not be allowed to purchase wild caught stock because I have no interest in breeding them or using them to increase genetic diversity within captive bred stock. So I dont buy wild caught stuff. It is just a personal opinion.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Well, this subject of wc animals gets complicated. There are times when removing animals from the wild the consumer market may actually benefit the wild population. If the animals are extracted in a way that provides incentive for habitat to be maintained and protected, then it can actually be a good thing. It's just good to keep in mind that habitat tends to get lost because some person, or group of people, have decided the area would be worth more money if it were converted to some other purpose.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Although I agree w/c shouldn`t be intended as pets, if your in it for the long term and keep connected w/ asn you would be an important bank if you could keep them alive, if they ever came in peril in captive collections. Just think if there were still atelopus in collections out there.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Although I agree w/c shouldn`t be intended as pets, if your in it for the long term and keep connected w/ asn you would be an important bank if you could keep them alive, if they ever came in peril in captive collections. Just think if there were still atelopus in collections out there.


That's another great point and plug Aaron. We should remember that species can go extinct in captivity as well as in the wild. If a species goes extinct in captivity, the only way to replace them is to collect from the wild. We have a responsibility to steward our captives well to prevent such a thing.


----------

