# STF Pet's Page: What Do You Think?



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Hopefully this is kosher here, but if not, mods please move this to the appropriate spot. I do think this is worthy of discussion to be aware about what is said about "us."

Save the Frogs! has opened up a pet page to "teach" uneducated people about the pet trade.

Pet Frogs

I find it funny that captive bred amphibians are not encouraged (not discouraged, but not mentioned, really). Further, the only acceptable pets are local, native species. So rather than suggest captive bred non-native species, they're suggesting getting your own wild caught amphibians.

I think it should also be noted that STF has an obsession with chytrid, and while chytrid has been found in captive populations, the link to transmit it to the wild populations has not been made. It is currently unknown if those infected individuals were collected with it or they were infected while in captivity. There is a lot of conjecture made on STF's part here.

I see a lot of garbage without much substance, personally. It looks like it was written by a person who has never had a pet amphibian and has an agenda to sell.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

not to mention that widespread keeping of native species will give the wrong people the mentality of "oh well lets just let it go outside" when they don't want it anymore. That sounds like a disaster to me from a disease standpoint...


----------



## Starkey (Jul 27, 2012)

Hello JP,

Thank you for highlighting the webpage I wrote for SAVE THE FROGS! It sincerely means a lot to me that you would take the time to ask members of the Dendroboard about their thoughts regarding the content on the page. It is my goal to work with herpetoculturists to make the pet trade as frog-friendly as possible. I hope I can learn from the responses that are in reply to your post. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I see a lot of garbage without much substance, personally. It looks like it was written by a person who has never had a pet amphibian and has an agenda to sell.


Curious, do you think it is all garbage? I put a lot of time into this webpage, as I want people interested in the subject to find this information educational and applicable. What would you add? What would you take away? I gathered some thoughts from your initial post, but I would like to hear more! Much of the information on this webpage is pooled together from published scientific papers, our current research regarding the trade of amphibians for use as pets, and my own personal observations. Before becoming a biologist, I was involved in the pet trade for 5 years breeding various reptile species and working in pet stores. Currently I do not breed any species, but I still frequent herp shows and stay involved in the pet world through membership to my local herpetological society. 

Lastly, I truly value any thoughts and positive criticisms that would help us in our goals to stop the trade of wild-caught amphibians for use as pets and our mission to promote responsible pet ownership to the general public. SAVE THE FROGS! is working to make the pet trade as frog-friendly as possible, do you or any others on this forum have suggestions that could help us achieve our goals? 

Please know that the webpage has much more content coming, as I am currently working on this campaign. While we are on the topic of SAVE THE FROGS' webpage about the pet trade, please review our Keeping Amphibians as Pets Information Card that will be online soon.

Front:








Back:









I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and opinions. Thank you for your time! 

Cheers,
Michael Starkey
Advisory Committee Chairman, Ecologist
SAVE THE FROGS!


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Michael, I am curious as to your position on the sustainable harvesting of amphibian species (bred in situ through the introduction of artificial breeding sites or via onsite captive breeding) for the pet trade? Some examples would be Understory Enterprises, the Costa Rican Amphibian Research Center, WIKIRI and Tesoros de Colombia Sustainable Farm SAS. The sustainable collection of amphibians for the pet trade provides income for low economic performing regions, allows for the conservation of habitat, and provides a legal, managed and disease free source of amphibians for scientific research, education and personal pleasure.

I can 100% get behind stopping the large scale and unregulated collection of amphibians for the pet trade. However, in place there needs to more sustainable, and economically advantageous at the local level, opportunities. While the pet trade plays its part in impacting amphibian populations the literature suggests that the primary threat to amphibians worldwide is habitat destruction followed by infectious disease. By creating networks that allow locals to benefit from the captive propagation of highly desirable amphibians we can continue to protect vital habitat and safeguard the interests of those amphibians we find so interesting.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Mr. Starkey,

Has Save the Frogs corrected the misinformation about being the first public charity that focused on Amphibian Conservation? I pointed this out Mr. Krieger quite awhile ago and he never responded. Tree Walkers International has been around since 2006, is focused on amphibian conservation, and provides grants for on the ground research and has a great salary to income ratio (since it still is all volunteer).... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Michael, I do hope that you are as open as you claim. We have had a number of interactions with Kerry where he has essentially insulted keepers here and has been obstinate to listen to anyone. I personally have had negative interactions with him that have caused me to never support STF while he has any say in it. So I do truly hope that you are as open-minded as you claim.

As to the website, here are some of the issues I have.

I view amphibians as a resource. We can utilize that renewable resource. They can be sustainably harvested without any negative impacts happening to the wild population. We have plenty of data on hunters and their prey for example, and despite considerable pressure on some species (white-tailed deer, for example), we still see stable or increasing populations. There is no reason to think otherwise for amphibians. Obviously, as conservationists (conservation, not preservation), we have to be careful about overexploiting the resource. There are few examples where that has happened (the Laos Newt and Kaiser Newt), but for the hundreds of species commonly collected, we don't see that. For most species, however, we don't see such declines. The website states that 100 million amphibians are removed which is "without a doubt unsustainable." But this is just speculation. I actually had the reaction that that is not all that many. I would bet that there are billions of amphibians on this planet, so removing 100 million (which also is a number that is not cited) actually does not seem that bad. But that, of course, depends on what is being imported. The majority likely are fairly common species (e.g., bullfrogs) and the rare species are a very small portion of that number. I am fine with wild collection provided it is done legally because, like I said, amphibians are a renewable resource.

I do, however, encourage that for any pet, amphibian or otherwise, people do research on the animal before getting it. If the amphibians come from questionable sources, don't get them. I agree with that. But not all wild collection is questionable.

Chytrid is a big issue with me. STF has an obsession with chytrid, and likes to overspeculate on results of papers. Like I originally said, there has been no conclusive evidence that has pointed at the pet trade (pet trade, not lab or food trade) being a significant source of contamination into wild populations. Yes, chytrid has been found in the pet trade, but there is no connection to amphibians in captivity are actually transferring the disease to wild populations.

Actually, it is laughable that STF suggest getting native species because they would be more likely to be released back into the wild. If the frog is contaminated with chytrid, a native species is more likely to be released into the wild than a non-native one (I think that we all realize here that, unless we live in extreme southern Florida or Hawaii, our dart frogs have no chance in the wild). Yes, there are ignorant people who would try to release dart frogs, or similar species, but I think that the impulse to do that would be greatly reduced with a non-native species than a native species.

In general, practice, regardless of captive versus wild caught amphibians, is a quarantine period. Captive amphibians have just as much ability to pass new diseases as wild ones.

I also think the scammers section is insulting. It sounds to me like anyone who sells a frog is a scammer, which is not true. Most prices, at least in this hobby, are just to recoup costs associated with raising the frogs. It sounds like an attack on people wanting to do that. I agree that it is important to know who you're buying from, but someone wanting to ask money for a frog does not make them a dishonest or unethical person.

And finally, I feel like there is a great lack of transparency on the site. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims, that if they do come from scientific studies, should be cited so that people can look for themselves as to what the conclusions of said papers are.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The silence is deafening..... 

Ed


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

I find this laughable...




> Cameron Diaz has been quoted as saying “I'd kiss a frog even if there was no promise of a Prince Charming popping out of it. I love frogs”. However, Cameron has yet to take any action to protect the frogs she claims to love. If you agree with us that Cameron Diaz would look pretty good in a 100% organic cotton SAVE THE FROGS! t-shirt, please sign this petition asking for Cameron Diaz's assistance in raising awareness of amphibian extinctions. Once we get Cameron on board -- speaking up for the frogs by recording public service announcements and appearing as a guest of honor at SAVE THE FROGS! lectures and fundraisers -- other celebrities will follow suit, so take action now!


I feel like its a bunch of teenagers running this site. What a hair-brained idea... Lets pull an obscure quote that a celebrity said and then try to use it to practically blackmail them into helping us.

I feel very good that my donations are going to Tree Walkers and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.


----------



## Starkey (Jul 27, 2012)

Thank you all for the great questions and for your patience. Some of my answers are going to bother you, because they are different from the way you may think about keeping amphibians as pets. Please realize that there are many different points of view when it comes to amphibian conservation. I ask you to have an open mind and please be civil. 



stemcellular said:


> Michael, I am curious as to your position on the sustainable harvesting of amphibian species (bred in situ through the introduction of artificial breeding sites or via onsite captive breeding) for the pet trade?


This is a great question and it is one I get often from people within the pet trade. You are 100% right. The greatest threat to amphibian populations is habitat destruction. Personally, I think it is acceptable that these organizations in other countries are breeding local amphibian species, exporting them, and then use the revenue earned to protect habitat. I understand this is a relatively positive way to get new amphibians into the pet trade in a way that actually benefits amphibian conservation. However, SAVE THE FROGS! does not feel that amphibians should ever be seen as a commodity. We like to give amphibians the benefit of the doubt that they would prefer a life in their natural habitat, than a life of captivity. By taking some frogs from the wild and breeding them to be sold as pets does not align with our mission of protecting amphibians. This is why STF! would never support such an initiative. STF! protects amphibian habitat and wants to keep the amphibians in their native habitat. It is not in the mission of STF! to be removing amphibians from the wild under any circumstance. 



Ed said:


> Has Save the Frogs corrected the misinformation about being the first public charity that focused on Amphibian Conservation?


TWI/ASN advocates taking amphibian species out of the wild for captive propagation then ultimately those species are to become a product of the pet trade. Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity _completely_ dedicated to amphibian conservation. Obviously, this answer is debatable on what philosophies you hold regarding conservation. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I view amphibians as a resource.


JP, thank you for your thorough response and I will definitely take some of your suggestions/concerns to heart. Yet, your above statement is where we will always disagree. Like I explained at the beginning of this post, SAVE THE FROGS! does not feel amphibians are a commodity or a resource. Therefore we can never advocate for such initiatives. 



MonarchzMan said:


> Yes, chytrid has been found in the pet trade, but there is no connection to amphibians in captivity are actually transferring the disease to wild populations.


There are two potential vectors of chytrid from the pet trade: 1) If someone releases an amphibian into the wild or 2.) Water from their enclosure is somehow put into the native ecosystem. The problem is that there is such little research being done about this issue, but we feel it is a considerable risk to native species. I encourage you or anyone else that is interested in this subject to start asking these questions, do the research, and publish the results. We need the information. 



MonarchzMan said:


> Yes, there are ignorant people who would try to release dart frogs, or similar species, but I think that the impulse to do that would be greatly reduced with a non-native species than a native species.


SAVE THE FROGS! held a table at a reptile expo this last weekend and I spoke to three separate individuals who released their pet American Bull Frog into the wild for various reasons. This was in California, where the American Bull Frog is a horribly invasive species. If they were keeping Pacific Chorus Frogs, Western Toads, or some other native species from their area, this would not have been such a big deal (besides the threat of potential disease introduction). These people thought they were doing the right thing when they could no longer take care of their pet. Now there are more invasive species in the wild. You are educated about these issues, most are not. This is why this statement is on the website. Please reach out to the herpetocultural community and spread this message about being a responsible keeper. I urge this of everyone reading this post. Education is essential, so please spread it to others who do not have it. 



MonarchzMan said:


> I also think the scammers section is insulting.


The comment about scammers, breeders, etc is in response to my own experiences in regards to finding good homes for animals. I have found that there are many people that have tried to “adopt” animals from me and turn around and sell them or breed them. This is irresponsible and it is why I justify writing that paragraph. If someone needs to find a home for their amphibian, they should be careful to make sure it is going to someone who wants to care for it, rather than sell it. 



carola1155 said:


> I feel very good that my donations are going to Tree Walkers and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.


I am aware of how SAVE THE FROGS! has a negative reputation on Dendroboard. I also understand that by me coming onto these forums, I am potentially raising some hairs. However, I want to bridge this gap, because I feel that if we are all working towards amphibian conservation, then we have the same principles at heart. *We want to see these species survive.* SAVE THE FROGS! and other amphibian conservation organizations have their own respective expertise in certain areas, and therefore will go about conserving species in the way we see fit. This may not always be on the same path; however the outcome is the same. My final thoughts are this, we may need to agree to disagree on certain issues, but please remember we all want the same thing… to save these wonderful species from extinction.

Finally, I do apologize as I may not be able to respond as quickly as some of you would like. I am now on the road to Vancouver to give a talk at the Intentional Congress of Herpetologists and Ichthyologists. I will try and respond when I can. Thank you again for your comments/suggestions.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Ah, so just really an extension of PETA crazies. Good luck saving amphibians through silly cartoons. That goes a long way toward habitat conservation.

I assume your org also opposes scientific research using amphibians?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Starkey said:


> TWI/ASN advocates taking amphibian species out of the wild for captive propagation then ultimately those species are to become a product of the pet trade. Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity _completely_ dedicated to amphibian conservation. Obviously, this answer is debatable on what philosophies you hold regarding conservation.


It is clearly debatable since sustainable harvest is a model of conservation that has been demonstrated to work in multiple countries and multiple ecosystems.... The opposite example of where no animals are allowed to be harvested has been repeatedly been shown to be a method that does not work over time. This has been documented repeatedly so to argue that the prevention of harvest of any species is complete dedication to amphibian conservation is specious... see for example Hutton, Jon; Dickson, Barney; 2001; Conservation out of exploitation: a silk purse from a sow’s ear?; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York
Sanderson, Steven, 2001; Getting biology right in a political sort of way; _In_ Conservation of Exploited Species; Cambridge University Press; New York


In addition, with respect to captive breeding, if animals can be produced inexpensively enough, wild caught animals lose value since the process from collection to importation becomes unprofitable... this is an economic model that has been run with respect to more than one species...



Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Dev30ils (May 1, 2012)

stemcellular said:


> Ah, so just really an extension of PETA crazies. Good luck saving amphibians through silly cartoons. That goes a long way toward habitat conservation.


Yup, they clearly made the impression that they are an animal _RIGHTS_ organization as opposed to an animal _WELFARE_ organization. Coming from an animal rescue background I cannot support a group like that at all. There will always be animals in captivity, so we need to do everything in our power to provide them the absolute best care possible.

Although, I do agree with them that responsible pet ownership is a huge educational initiative that needs to be focused on.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

Starkey said:


> TWI/ASN advocates taking amphibian species out of the wild for captive propagation then ultimately those species are to become a product of the pet trade. Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity _completely_ dedicated to amphibian conservation. Obviously, this answer is debatable on what philosophies you hold regarding conservation.


This is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum... and that's saying a lot

But just to kick the tires a bit... maybe you could answer me this question for me. If I were to pay a man to mow my lawn... I would be hiring him as a "landscaper" correct? but if I were to have a man cut my lawn and then give him money so that he can pay his bills... what do you call that?

My point is... you are basically twisting facts to suit your needs so that you can make false claims. Just like the guy calling his Hummer a "work truck" (I could go on with the analogies here, I have a lot of free time).

I'm actually going to completely agree with Ray here... You seem to mirror PETA's unrealistic ideology about how the world works. There is going to be a demand for this frogs. You can try all you want to stop it but... when people want something they will try to buy it. The SENSIBLE thing is to come up with a realistic solution to provide a sustainable way to give people what they want. Telling them "no you can't have it" will never work. It is a waste of time and a waste of resources.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

carola1155 said:


> I'm actually going to completely agree with Ray here... You seem to mirror PETA's unrealistic ideology about how the world works. There is going to be a demand for this frogs. You can try all you want to stop it but... when people want something they will try to buy it. The SENSIBLE thing is to come up with a realistic solution to provide a sustainable way to give people what they want. Telling them "no you can't have it" will never work. It is a waste of time and a waste of resources.


Which is well discussed here Courchamp, Frank; Angulo, Elena, Rivalan, Phillippe; Hall, Richard J.; Signoret, Laetitia; Bull, Leigh; Meinard, Yves; 2006; Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic allee effect; PLoS Biol 4(12): 
(free access PLoS Biology: Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect and http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/PDFs/AAEModel.pdf ) 

Further argument for sustainable harvest (when combined with the above citations (including my second post above) http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_pl...tion_and_conservation_biologytree2008_462.pdf 



Some comments

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Starkey said:


> TWI/ASN advocates taking amphibian species out of the wild for captive propagation then ultimately those species are to become a product of the pet trade. Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity _completely_ dedicated to amphibian conservation. Obviously, this answer is debatable on what philosophies you hold regarding conservation.


STF needs to rework what they are actually doing, then. Having gotten a masters degree in conservation, I can tell you that you are not advocating for conservation, but _preservation_. Conservation is the idea of conserving resources for future use. Preservation is the idea of preserving resources for no human use. The idea of conservation implies that humans will utilize the resource.

So STF is the first charity dedicated to amphibian _preservation_, not conservation. For examples, I would suggest looking up conservation versus preservation. It's a common idea in conservation biology.

Basics: Conservation vs. Preservation – Thoughts from Kansas



> JP, thank you for your thorough response and I will definitely take some of your suggestions/concerns to heart. Yet, your above statement is where we will always disagree. Like I explained at the beginning of this post, SAVE THE FROGS! does not feel amphibians are a commodity or a resource. Therefore we can never advocate for such initiatives.


The STF loses quite a bit of support it could otherwise have, and will actually be hard to taken seriously by conservation organizations because of those positions. It makes the organization look like nothing more than an amphibian branch of PETA, which is the bane of many conservation organizations.

Just as you can sustainably harvest food from land, you can sustainably harvest amphibians without any impact to the population. I would seriously suggest that STF reconsider its questionable positions in that regard.



> There are two *potential* vectors of chytrid from the pet trade: 1) If someone releases an amphibian into the wild or 2.) Water from their enclosure is somehow put into the native ecosystem. The problem is that there is such little research being done about this issue, but we feel it is a considerable risk to native species. I encourage you or anyone else that is interested in this subject to start asking these questions, do the research, and publish the results. We need the information.


I have highlighted the key point here. Potential. STF has taken the position, whether directly or indirectly, that the pet trade spreads chytrid. There has been no connection that pet frogs are spreading the disease. STF has repeatedly taken the position that because there is chytrid in pet frogs, it must be spreading to wild populations. There has been no research that demonstrates that this happens. There certainly needs to be research done, but until then, it is irresponsible to extrapolate beyond what is found in the literature.



> SAVE THE FROGS! held a table at a reptile expo this last weekend and I spoke to three separate individuals who released their pet American Bull Frog into the wild for various reasons. This was in California, where the American Bull Frog is a horribly invasive species. If they were keeping Pacific Chorus Frogs, Western Toads, or some other native species from their area, this would not have been such a big deal (besides the threat of potential disease introduction). These people thought they were doing the right thing when they could no longer take care of their pet. Now there are more invasive species in the wild. You are educated about these issues, most are not. This is why this statement is on the website. Please reach out to the herpetocultural community and spread this message about being a responsible keeper. I urge this of everyone reading this post. Education is essential, so please spread it to others who do not have it.


Education is essential, I agree. For example, did you ask if these people were aware that the bullfrog were not a native to California (as opposed to tell them that they weren't)? I could very easily see that said people have seen bullfrogs in the wild in California, and assumed that they were native. How many instances have you come across for people releasing dart frogs? Or Neotropical tree frogs? Or Asian newts? When an animal doesn't look at all like things they've seen in the wild, I don't think they'd think it would make it.

I still maintain that getting natives because if you want to release them, it's not so bad, is a very irresponsible position, especially from a disease standpoint. Once something is taken into captivity (at least for the hobby), it should stay in captivity.



> The comment about scammers, breeders, etc is in response to my own experiences in regards to finding good homes for animals. I have found that there are many people that have tried to “adopt” animals from me and turn around and sell them or breed them. This is irresponsible and it is why I justify writing that paragraph. If someone needs to find a home for their amphibian, they should be careful to make sure it is going to someone who wants to care for it, rather than sell it.


It very much comes off as anyone wanting to sell a frog for money is a scammer.



> I am aware of how SAVE THE FROGS! has a negative reputation on Dendroboard. I also understand that by me coming onto these forums, I am potentially raising some hairs. However, I want to bridge this gap, because I feel that if we are all working towards amphibian conservation, then we have the same principles at heart. *We want to see these species survive.* SAVE THE FROGS! and other amphibian conservation organizations have their own respective expertise in certain areas, and therefore will go about conserving species in the way we see fit. This may not always be on the same path; however the outcome is the same. My final thoughts are this, we may need to agree to disagree on certain issues, but please remember we all want the same thing… to save these wonderful species from extinction.


Are you familiar with the sea turtle egg collection program of Ostional, Costa Rica? Essentially, locals are allowed to harvest the first eggs from an _arribada_ with the general logic that with so many turtles coming up on the beach that the first eggs will be destroyed by later nesting turtles. This seems counter-intuitive, and I've had arguments with sea turtle lovers about the policy. But the sea turtle population has actually been growing since the program has been put into place. This is in part because the locals have seen that there is a value to the research, and they fiercely protect it.

The moral of the story is that if locals find value in a local resource and are educated about how it can be sustainably used, they can protect it. And frankly, we all can advocate all we want that these tropical amphibians should be protected, but unless the locals are on board with that, protection will fail. And telling them that they can't use anything on their own land isn't likely to gain favor. Instead, they can be taught that frogs can be a renewable resource as long as it is done sustainably.

Further, having pets can generate interest in protection of wild animals. If you were to take a poll from members here who donate to conservation organizations and asked them what provoked interest in conservation of these animals, I would bet that the majority would say that they were interested because they had pets that fascinated them, and they wanted to protect the animals in the wild so everyone can enjoy them.

STF greatly underestimates the conservation potential that the pet trade has. You'd find that most folks here are ardent advocates of amphibian conservation here because of what they experience here. And I doubt you'll find much support for STF here as long as its official positions are against what we enjoy, whether it's attacking breeders for making money, stopping all amphibian imports, or having USFWS declare amphibians as injurious wildlife unless certified chytrid free.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Damn well said, JP.


----------



## Starkey (Jul 27, 2012)

carola1155 said:


> There is going to be a demand for this frogs. You can try all you want to stop it but... when people want something they will try to buy it.


To be clear, SAVE THE FROGS! is not trying to stop the pet trade. SAVE THE FROGS! is working to make the pet trade as frog friendly as possible by stopping the collection of amphibians from the wild, reducing disease transmission from captive amphibians to native ecosystems, and to promote a society that is responsible with their pet amphibians. 



MonarchzMan said:


> Education is essential, I agree. For example, did you ask if these people were aware that the bullfrog were not a native to California (as opposed to tell them that they weren't)?


I am glad you feel this way and I hope you keep continuing to educate others in regards to amphibian conservation. I did ask these individuals if they realized that the American Bull Frog was a non-native species (of course, many did not!), but we must keep educating... 

Currently we have a petition to ban the import, sale, possession, and release of American Bull Frogs in California. I encourage you all to learn more about this campaign: American Bullfrog - Rana catesbeiana. We just recently celebrated a victory of having Santa Cruz to be the first city in the world to ban the importation, sale, possession, and release of the American Bull Frog within city limits, and it is our hope that other cities follow this action. Did you know California spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year removing this species from native ecosystems? Yet we still import millions into the state for the pet, food, and bait trade? We need to spread this idea of being of being responsible with our pets and that amphibians are in trouble, and I hope that you guys can to! You can find ways to spread the word by going here: Frogs are Disappearing - Spread The Word!



MonarchzMan said:


> The moral of the story is that if locals find value in a local resource and are educated about how it can be sustainably used, they can protect it.


Dr. Jane Goodall and I would agree with you. When local people appreciate nature and wildlife, then they will protect it. This is an incredibly important part of the work that SAVE THE FROGS! does around the world and I am happy to hear you feel the same way. I hope you can can work to inspire others to feel the same as you. We need more people to spread the message of conservation, so I applaud your efforts. 



MonarchzMan said:


> Further, having pets can generate interest in protection of wild animals.


I wouldn't be working in the field of conservation if I had not kept reptiles and amphibians as pets. They inspired me to not only want to provide the best possible care for them, but to hopefully one day see them in the wild. My first pet lizard was an iguana. It was a wild-caught juvenile and it promptly died in two weeks. This was in the 90's when reptile husbandry was just starting to blossom, but unfortunately that poor iguana died because of my ignorance. If I had known how much time, patience, and money goes into caring for an adult Green Iguana, I would not have had that poor juvenile. I wish someone had educated me. Now I see them every time I go to Central America basking in 30'-40' trees... It is hard to keep such an animal in a glass tank, once you have seen them in such a natural setting. Despite this, I greatly value the potential that amphibians in captivity have to inspire people to appreciate them. It is my hope that most people feel as you and I do, and that they do not feel these amphibians are expendable, easily replaced, and that they treat them as more than just an animal inside of a glass box. I know you all appreciate them for what they are, but in my experiences, you are all a minority in the way you feel about your amphibians as pets. So it is my hope that you encourage others to think as you do. Please, use your frogs to inspire others to care about nature and wildlife. 



MonarchzMan said:


> STF greatly underestimates the conservation potential that the pet trade has.


To be honest JP, I would not have launched this campaign if I did not value the potential of people involved within the pet trade. I do not underestimate the conservation power that the pet trade has, as this trade is what inspired me to follow a career into conservation. I know it has done the same for many of you. I want you to keep your frogs. I want you to tell people about how amphibians are incredibly amazing and beautiful creatures. I want you to get people to care about conservation of amphibians. I do not lose sleep if we feel differently about what method of conservation we chose for amphibians. I only care about if _you make the effort to get people to care about amphibians._ We both love frogs. This is true, so please... keep loving them and keep telling people about them. That enthusiasm and passion will save species from going extinct. In the last year, I have talked to over 3,000 people about amphibian ecology and conservation. I encourage you all do the same. That is all that matters... getting people to care. 



MonarchzMan said:


> And I doubt you'll find much support for STF here as long as its official positions are against what we enjoy, whether it's attacking breeders for making money, stopping all amphibian imports, or having USFWS declare amphibians as injurious wildlife unless certified chytrid free.


I am not looking for the support of the Dendroboard or anyone that posts here. JP, you posted about the pet trade page that SAVE THE FROGS! created, and I came here to read and ask about your opinions. I wanted to know what you think. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to pick your brain.

Also, official positions for your review:

(1) SAVE THE FROGS! opposes the capture of wild amphibians for use as pets. It is unethical to remove amphibians from their homes. Instead of experiencing freedom -- our most fundamental right -- the frogs will experience crowded conditions and possibly even the diseases that thrive in such situations.

(2) SAVE THE FROGS! opposes the transportation and importation of non-native amphibians for use as pets. Those who desire to use frogs as pets should stick with native, captive-raised amphibians so as to reduce the spread on infectious diseases, which can drive amphibian species to complete extinction.

(3) SAVE THE FROGS! supports the regulation of amphibians with respect to disease-free certification systems such as that proposed by the USFWS as part of the Lacey Act.

Thank you again for the constructive comments/criticisms. SAVE THE FROGS! is hopefully going to have educational tables at herp expos in Sacramento, San Jose, Anaheim, and Daytona to promote responsible amphibian ownership. Please stop by and introduce yourself. I sincerely look forward to meeting you.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Michael, I will address those points you have since brought up, but I have noticed that you missed quite a few that I brought up in my previous post. One of the problems we've had with STF before is that when hard questions were asked, they were overlooked. I hope you do not follow the same trend. After all, if you want support from the hobby, it is important to be as open and as transparent as possible.



Starkey said:


> To be clear, SAVE THE FROGS! is not trying to stop the pet trade. SAVE THE FROGS! is working to make the pet trade as frog friendly as possible by stopping the collection of amphibians from the wild, reducing disease transmission from captive amphibians to native ecosystems, and to promote a society that is responsible with their pet amphibians.


You may not see it, but your positions would effectively stop the pet trade. I'll explain later.



> Currently we have a petition to ban the import, sale, possession, and release of American Bull Frogs in California. I encourage you all to learn more about this campaign: American Bullfrog - Rana catesbeiana. We just recently celebrated a victory of having Santa Cruz to be the first city in the world to ban the importation, sale, possession, and release of the American Bull Frog within city limits, and it is our hope that other cities follow this action. Did you know California spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year removing this species from native ecosystems? Yet we still import millions into the state for the pet, food, and bait trade? We need to spread this idea of being of being responsible with our pets and that amphibians are in trouble, and I hope that you guys can to! You can find ways to spread the word by going here: Frogs are Disappearing - Spread The Word!


I certainly can't speak for others here, but one of the things that always irked me about previous discussions with STF was how Kerry always posted links over and over to STF. I would ask you not to fall into that, please. I think we are all aware of STF's website and can navigate it to find our desired destinations. Continually posting links just comes off as shameless promotion that really doesn't help your case and makes it seem as though you're not interested in what we have to say, but just getting the link out as much as possible.

As is, I know quite a bit about the threats bull frogs pose. I also know that farms for them for food probably pose the largest threat as far as chytrid goes (even fish farming is a huge threat, but STF is silent). Yet, STF has not taken active measures to tackle this. The best they've done is tried to stage some protests at frog leg vendors, which will do nothing to solve the problem. To solve the problem, you must go to the source. And realistically, STF is not going to stop the farming of bull frogs as food. It just is not going to happen. But what could be done, and what I would support, is legislation forcing commercial frog producers to have strict biosecurity protocols similar to what is done for other livestock (e.g., poultry). You're not going to stop the frog leg trade, and efforts to do so will be wasted. Instead, you can work to minimize its impact. Personally, I would much rather people be eating captive bred bull frogs than wild caught natives.



> Dr. Jane Goodall and I would agree with you. When local people appreciate nature and wildlife, then they will protect it. This is an incredibly important part of the work that SAVE THE FROGS! does around the world and I am happy to hear you feel the same way. I hope you can can work to inspire others to feel the same as you. We need more people to spread the message of conservation, so I applaud your efforts.


You misinterpret my meaning. STF would have locals not utilize a resource on their own lands. These sort of bans, as Ed has pointed out, do not work. Instead, if you show them economic benefit to sustaining populations, as has been done with the Ostional sea turtles, you can develop a conservation program that will protect the amphibians (and likely habitat) while allowing locals to utilize them.



> Now I see them every time I go to Central America basking in 30'-40' trees... It is hard to keep such an animal in a glass tank, once you have seen them in such a natural setting.


This is the problem, though. Most people do not have the capability to see them in the wild. Instead, they can have a bit of the rainforest in their homes and in turn, develop interest. Personally, I very much enjoy having my frogs because it offers me a daily reminder of why I study them. It excites me to be able to observe them and develop new questions rather than wait for a following year to go to the tropics.



> Despite this, I greatly value the potential that amphibians in captivity have to inspire people to appreciate them. It is my hope that most people feel as you and I do, and that they do not feel these amphibians are expendable, easily replaced, and that they treat them as more than just an animal inside of a glass box. I know you all appreciate them for what they are, but in my experiences, you are all a minority in the way you feel about your amphibians as pets. So it is my hope that you encourage others to think as you do. Please, use your frogs to inspire others to care about nature and wildlife.


What would you have people do if not treat these frogs as just an animal inside a box? Most of the folks here see their frogs as an animal inside a box, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. They provide and care for their animals, sometimes better than they care for themselves. I have yet to find a dart frog keeper who is indifferent towards their frogs.



> To be honest JP, I would not have launched this campaign if I did not value the potential of people involved within the pet trade. I do not underestimate the conservation power that the pet trade has, as this trade is what inspired me to follow a career into conservation. I know it has done the same for many of you. I want you to keep your frogs. I want you to tell people about how amphibians are incredibly amazing and beautiful creatures. I want you to get people to care about conservation of amphibians. I do not lose sleep if we feel differently about what method of conservation we chose for amphibians. I only care about if _you make the effort to get people to care about amphibians._ We both love frogs. This is true, so please... keep loving them and keep telling people about them. That enthusiasm and passion will save species from going extinct. In the last year, I have talked to over 3,000 people about amphibian ecology and conservation. I encourage you all do the same. That is all that matters... getting people to care.


I agree that getting people to care is very important, but poorly informed, but caring can actually be as damaging as not caring at all. I and others have pointed out a number of the flaws in STF's positions that could make it so. For example, the no wild use policy STF supports. This would encourage a black market, which would be completely unregulated and wipe out species. A more responsible position would be to encourage wild collection under strict regulation.



> I am not looking for the support of the Dendroboard or anyone that posts here. JP, you posted about the pet trade page that SAVE THE FROGS! created, and I came here to read and ask about your opinions. I wanted to know what you think. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to pick your brain.
> 
> Also, official positions for your review:


May I ask to what point? It seems as though STF is not open to opinions that differ from theirs. I will review your policies, but as has been demonstrated, reviewing is pretty pointless since they are not open for discussion. So to what point and purpose to come here? If you want opinions and sincerely want to make the pet trade frog friendly, I would suggest listening to those in the pet trade. I want a sustainable trade. But the positions STF has taken would not allow for that.

As to how your policies would negatively impact the hobby...



> (1) SAVE THE FROGS! opposes the capture of wild amphibians for use as pets. It is unethical to remove amphibians from their homes. Instead of experiencing freedom -- our most fundamental right -- the frogs will experience crowded conditions and possibly even the diseases that thrive in such situations.


Is it unethical to remove lettuce from its home? Is it unethical to remove a cow from its home? Like I said before, frogs are a renewable resource. Further, in the wild, frogs have to deal with starvation, predators, disease, habitat loss, etc. They do not have to deal with such things in captivity. Any frog in captivity would have a longer, happier life than one in the wild. I am not saying that this should justify taking all frogs out of their natural habitat, but it is a straw man to suggest that frogs are slaves to their captors.

I am guessing that if you were to ask, most here would ardently encourage purchasing captive bred animals over wild caughts, however, most would understand the need for wild caught animals. The hobby is not perfect. In an ideal world, we would trade animals and share genetic diversity, but that is difficult, to say the least; even zoos can have difficulty with this. Consequently, in order to keep genetically healthy populations, occasionally new blood is needed. As frogs are a renewable resource, the occasional import helps maintain healthy lines without negatively impacting wild populations. To remove entirely wild collection would relegate hobbyists to inbreed their frogs, increasing all sorts of genetic maladies.



> (2) SAVE THE FROGS! opposes the transportation and importation of non-native amphibians for use as pets. Those who desire to use frogs as pets should stick with native, captive-raised amphibians so as to reduce the spread on infectious diseases, which can drive amphibian species to complete extinction.


Like I stated before, your entire rational for using natives hinges on the idea that, if they do get into the wild, it's not that big of a deal. From a disease vector standpoint, however, this is horrible. Frogs, even native frogs, can contract diseases while in captivity. And I could see some bleeding heart see their frog not doing well, and figure that maybe it would be happier in the wild, so they release it. And it's justified because it's a native. As I asked before, how many dart frogs have you heard released? Neotropical tree frogs? Asian newts?

Just as no person would try releasing a saltwater fish in freshwater because it obviously does not go there, a non-native that obviously does not occur in the local environment of a keeper would likely have little risk of actually being released.



> (3) SAVE THE FROGS! supports the regulation of amphibians with respect to disease-free certification systems such as that proposed by the USFWS as part of the Lacey Act.


And this would kill the hobby. 

Who is going to pay for disease-free certification? STF? What if a vendor wants to bring 100 frogs to be sold at a show? Are they to pay the $8 each to have their frogs swabbed and ensured to be chytrid free? Or how about the USFWS folks that now have one more law to uphold? Where is the money coming for them to enforce this? STF again?



> Thank you again for the constructive comments/criticisms. SAVE THE FROGS! is hopefully going to have educational tables at herp expos in Sacramento, San Jose, Anaheim, and Daytona to promote responsible amphibian ownership. Please stop by and introduce yourself. I sincerely look forward to meeting you.


I would suggest talking to the leadership at STF, then, and start reconsidering your positions as I am betting you would be met with a bit more ire and criticism than what you've seen here. If you want to be open for discussion, please, by all means, be open. I am sorry if this comes off as harsh, but don't come here asking for suggestions and opinions when it seems fairly clear that you're not open to even considering them.


----------



## oneshot (Mar 5, 2010)

With all this typing, seems like Starkey is going to miss the next "Occupy Wall Street" meeting...


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

oneshot said:


> With all this typing, seems like Starkey is going to miss the next "Occupy Wall Street" meeting...


This is not about politics, so let's please not make it out to be such. There are folks of all political ideologies that are pro-pet trade.


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

I honestly see no point in this thread. Save The Frogs is an institution, and as such has formulated an ideology and agenda. I completely agree that their stance is nearly identical though not as drastic as PETA. There is not going to be any convincing them to "see it our way", or "see the light". Ideologist are highly set in their ways and beliefs, and arguing with them is like beatign your haead against the wall. Nothing will come of it except a head ache. Initially, I was slightly interested in what Save the Frogs was about, but now that I know, I don't want to hear any more of that dribble coming from them. I wouldn't waste my time debating anything, citing papers, studies, or anything, they're just going to disregard it. The best we can do, is to not support or even acknowledge them. By acknowledgign them, you lend them a tad bit of credibility, because we as a group come off as defensive. Just my opinion.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

My thought exactly - you're just giving them more publicity.

s


pdfCrazy said:


> I honestly see no point in this thread. Save The Frogs is an institution, and as such has formulated an ideology and agenda. ...


----------



## ndame88 (Sep 24, 2010)

Love this thread, learning everyday. Why does STF have "Americas first and only public charity dedicated amphibian conservation"? You can always argue who was first, but to say the only one?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

pdfCrazy said:


> I honestly see no point in this thread. Save The Frogs is an institution, and as such has formulated an ideology and agenda. I completely agree that their stance is nearly identical though not as drastic as PETA. There is not going to be any convincing them to "see it our way", or "see the light". Ideologist are highly set in their ways and beliefs, and arguing with them is like beatign your haead against the wall. Nothing will come of it except a head ache. Initially, I was slightly interested in what Save the Frogs was about, but now that I know, I don't want to hear any more of that dribble coming from them. I wouldn't waste my time debating anything, citing papers, studies, or anything, they're just going to disregard it. The best we can do, is to not support or even acknowledge them. By acknowledgign them, you lend them a tad bit of credibility, because we as a group come off as defensive. Just my opinion.


Perhaps it is that this is someone new who seems to have some influence over what is said at STF that causes me to maintain a discussion. Michael seems interested in collaborating with those in the hobby as well as scientists. If he has an open mind and is truly willing to have a discussion, I think we should have it.

If we write them off based solely on interactions with its director, are we any better than them writing off the hobby because of a few interactions they've had?

That this is someone new makes me hope there can be change for the better. If not, well, we are no worse off.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

I read this post as others, once again, not wanting to hear an opposing viewpoint, and just arguing to be "correct". This happens way too often.

They believe in no wild harvest. You believe in wild harvest, but to maintain wild diversity. Others, myslef included, believe we can breed pet frogs without preserving wild diversity and without harming it. But why do other viewpoints need to be squashed, often using near ridiculous arguments?


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

It's one thing to say you don't believe in the tooth fairy, it's another to say you don't believe in poachers.


----------



## Starkey (Jul 27, 2012)

oneshot said:


> With all this typing, seems like Starkey is going to miss the next "Occupy Wall Street" meeting...


I am very disappointed by this comment. Regardless, there is some truth in this statement. I took a lot of time to read the thoughts expressed on this forum, reflect on them, and to reply. However, when I read comments like this, it clearly requires me to change my tactics of gathering information in order for me to be more productive with my time. 



pdfCrazy said:


> I honestly see no point in this thread. Save The Frogs is an institution, and as such has formulated an ideology and agenda.


Thank you for your thoughts. This thread was to discuss SAVE THE FROGS' new webpage about the pet trade. 



MonarchzMan said:


> If we write them off based solely on interactions with its director, *are we any better than them writing off the hobby because of a few interactions they've had?*


Unfortunately this discussion is not what I was hoping it would be. As I stated earlier, I came to this forum in an effort to reach out and learn from who I feel are some of the most responsible keepers/breeders in the herpetocultural community. In my experiences, Dendobatid keepers are truly in a league of their own when it comes to keeping their pets alive and well. I understand and appreciate that their dedication to their pets is what is revolutionizing husbandry practices/captive breeding of rare and endangered species of amphibians around the world. 

That being said, I now know that my presence here is still unwelcome. This is unfortunate. On Dendroboard, SAVE THE FROGS! is clearly seen as a villain. I attempted to raise a "white flag" in hope of some diplomacy, but I now understand that this is not the avenue for me to share ideas about SAVE THE FROGS' stance on the pet trade. Perhaps I was foolish in thinking so, but I was hoping to find some way to work together. 

JP, I appreciate you taking the time and energy to seriously address my responses. I am not going to reply on this forum anymore, but I may email you in the future to discuss this issue further. I truly learned a lot by having this discussion, but I see now that I need to take it off public forums for it to actually be productive. Like I said earlier, if any of you see SAVE THE FROGS! at your local herp expo, please stop by and introduce yourself. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the pet trade with you in person. 

Thank you again and good luck to all of you.


----------



## Duff (Aug 4, 2011)

Micheal, 
I am new to the hobby and have been reading each post with interest, and am disappointed that you choose to focus on the a few comments that should be bypassed and then openly choose to not answer valid questions/points by JP and others on your Official Positions (for those of us who are not as familiar with your organization). That leaves us (or maybe just me) who are interested in this conversation to believe that you are not interested in debate or sharing/discussing your organizations core beliefs in an open forum. 

I don't believe it is so much about diplomacy but rather, helping others understand your organizations stance on these important topics. It does not appear to me that your presence is not welcome, rather there are fundamental questions that keep going unanswered. Sharing ideas is one thing but it appears to me that on going questions refused to be answered. As a spoke person for your organization, I would think discussing your official positions in detail would be a simple matter, why are you unwilling to answer them? If not here, then where? Chances are we shall never meet and I will never fully understand your organizations official positions due to your unwillingness to have open discussions with members here.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Hopefully, you'll still check this thread, but if not, oh well.



Starkey said:


> Unfortunately this discussion is not what I was hoping it would be. As I stated earlier, I came to this forum in an effort to reach out and learn from who I feel are some of the most responsible keepers/breeders in the herpetocultural community. In my experiences, Dendobatid keepers are truly in a league of their own when it comes to keeping their pets alive and well. I understand and appreciate that their dedication to their pets is what is revolutionizing husbandry practices/captive breeding of rare and endangered species of amphibians around the world.


I would agree with you in that regard. I've been around a number of different groups within the overall hobby, and dendrobatid keepers seem to be among the best for conservation awareness and animal care. It's for that reason, I do not like initiatives that would seek to dismantle the dendrobatid hobby. You may not see it as such, but it unfortunately is so. 



> That being said, I now know that my presence here is still unwelcome. This is unfortunate. On Dendroboard, SAVE THE FROGS! is clearly seen as a villain. I attempted to raise a "white flag" in hope of some diplomacy, but I now understand that this is not the avenue for me to share ideas about SAVE THE FROGS' stance on the pet trade. Perhaps I was foolish in thinking so, but I was hoping to find some way to work together.


You must understand where we come from. Kerry has come onto the board begging for money (and that you have not, I very much applaud you). When asked questions, he ducked and dodged the important issues, and then let slip he thought that all captive frogs were slaves and if he had his way, there wouldn't be any captive frogs. It takes quite a bit of nerve to come into a group, ask for money that would ultimately destroy the group. He's done it several times, and it's left a sour taste in the mouths of many here. Since its inception, Kerry has been the voice, face, and mind behind STF. What he says goes, and there was no changing it. So, understandably, those here saw his views as STF's views, which means the undoing of the hobby.

I, personally, have had exchanges with Kerry and I have found him to be rude and obstinate. He does not like having open discussions about policies and positions. Instead, it's his word goes. And he has no obligation to listen to anyone who doesn't give STF money (he actually said this to me). For a group interested in frog conservation at any cost, I would think that any option would be on the table. Especially from those with a conservation background, such as myself. 



> JP, I appreciate you taking the time and energy to seriously address my responses. I am not going to reply on this forum anymore, but I may email you in the future to discuss this issue further. I truly learned a lot by having this discussion, but I see now that I need to take it off public forums for it to actually be productive. Like I said earlier, if any of you see SAVE THE FROGS! at your local herp expo, please stop by and introduce yourself. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the pet trade with you in person.
> 
> Thank you again and good luck to all of you.


Michael, you would be welcome to email me. But, I'd actually say it would be better to have the conversation here. As you can see, there are many folks to convince, and if you're really interested in gaining support among this hobby, you're not going to do it one email at a time. I am very interested in frog conservation, but I think STF's positions will alienate many of those interested in conservation and actually hurt the overall goal. It's for that reason that I won't support STF until it does do some serious chances. I am, however, always open for discussion.

And if you are wanting to get the support of the hobby, I would seriously not look at your positions as written in stone, but realize they can be changed. It is okay to concede points and admit wrong. It's how an organization grows and becomes successful.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm going to outline exactly where they completely lost me:




Starkey said:


> TWI/ASN advocates taking amphibian species out of the wild for captive propagation then ultimately those species are to become a product of the pet trade. Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity _completely_ dedicated to amphibian conservation. Obviously, this answer is debatable on what philosophies you hold regarding conservation.





Starkey said:


> I am aware of how SAVE THE FROGS! has a negative reputation on Dendroboard. I also understand that by me coming onto these forums, I am potentially raising some hairs. However, I want to bridge this gap, because I feel that if we are all working towards amphibian conservation, then we have the same principles at heart. *We want to see these species survive.* SAVE THE FROGS! and other amphibian conservation organizations have their own respective expertise in certain areas, and therefore will go about conserving species in the way we see fit. This may not always be on the same path; however the outcome is the same. My final thoughts are this, we may need to agree to disagree on certain issues, but please remember we all want the same thing… to save these wonderful species from extinction.


To narrow it down a bit more and highlight the part that really stuck out to me... 
"*Unfortunately we disagree with this method of conservation and therefore we feel that SAVE THE FROGS! is the first public charity completely dedicated to amphibian conservation.*"
-and-
'*However, I want to bridge this gap, because I feel that if we are all working towards amphibian conservation, then we have the same principles at heart*

How exactly does one expect to bridge a gap by completely denying (my interpretation) that something else exists? The whole parading around "THE FIRST AND ONLY" on your website just irks the hell out of me.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way... and I truly wouldn't being wrong here, but that is how it comes across to me.


----------



## inka4040 (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sorry, but to me, STF's position comes off as not only profoundly naive, but reeking of first world entitlement. It's quite easy as a relatively well fed and comfortable American to ask a population not to use their resources, potentially going hungry so that the precious frogs can live in comfort. The simple fact of the matter is that it is absolutely unacceptable to ask these people not to use their resources when no other means of making a livelihood is offered. Time and time again, we have seen incentivization at the forefront of the most successful conservation efforts (birdwing butterflies, maricultured corals, or Asian arowanas, anyone?) and to argue that sustainable harvest isnt or cannot be part of the answer is misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worst. Sustainable harvest allows a lot if at risk populations to make a living off the land in a profoundly less destructive and much more responsible way than many other traditional methods, and it is absolutely unfair and misguided to attempt to halt these practices without expecting people to go back to other means of making a living off the land. I can't imagine slash and burn agriculture or massive palm oil plantations really improve the frogs' lot more than sustainable harvest which is hinged on the health of the ecosystem as a whole.


----------



## ndame88 (Sep 24, 2010)

carola1155 said:


> I'm going to outline exactly where they completely lost me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You worded it better then I did, but I guess that was my point as well, not only is it in bold, but also on top of the first page. Are they denying the existence of Tree Walkers International? It just seems arrogant and self serving of them to use that statement as their "rallying cry" as if this is it for amphibian conservation for the entire world so donate to us.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

That is a unique twist....

We are the first conservation group because we don't recognize any other conservation groups. I think for credibility sake, that would have to go.

Maybe "We are the first amphibian conservation group with our distinct viewpoint on wild animal collection"


----------



## savethefrogs (Feb 21, 2009)

Hi,
I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true. 

On another topic, I am extremely pleased that you all dedicate pages to discussing our efforts. We will continue to spread our message of amphibian conservation to the distant corners of the planet (and throughout your neighborhood as well) to ensure that amphibian populations survive in the wild far into the future. We do not view amphibians as a resource but as sentient beings with inherent rights to exist freely outside the shackles of human intervention. 

Thanks for your support, and please do keep discussing our work.
Have a great day!

Kerry Kriger, Ph.D.
Save The Frogs - Founder, Executive Director, Ecologist
SAVE THE FROGS!
Kerry Kriger


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

savethefrogs said:


> Hi,
> I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
> Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity how do you feel about cows, pigs, chickens and fish? Unless you are a vegan the quote above reeks of hypocrisy and smugness.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

mantisdragon91 said:


> Out of curiosity how do you feel about cows, pigs, chickens and fish? Unless you are a vegan the quote above reeks of hypocrisy and smugness.


Why limit it to just food animals...?


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

mantisdragon91 said:


> Out of curiosity how do you feel about cows, pigs, chickens and fish? Unless you are a vegan the quote above reeks of hypocrisy and smugness.


I like Sea Kittens!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

savethefrogs said:


> SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.


Let me clear some of this up. 

Tree Walkers International is technically a _project_ under Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE), which is a certified 501c3 non-profit with the IRS and serves as an umbrella/incubator organization for small startups and/or grassroots efforts, which is what TWI is (this is why all donation checks must be made out to SEE and not TWI). So by default we share SEE's non-profit status and determination, 9-digit code, etc. 

SEE takes care of all the back-end office, financial, tax and legal services required of a certified non-profit, and in exchange take a very small percentage out of each donation we receive in order to cover those costs, and the rest of the donation is directed into our account. Because there are a large number of similar grassroots projects as members, those small fees enable SEE to employ a project/office manager and financial officer to handle everything, freeing us at TWI up to focus all our efforts on conservation and minimal time/effort/cost on office administration. 

We find this to be the best way to steward donations from our members and supporters.


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

just to get this straight...



savethefrogs said:


> Hi,
> I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
> Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.





skylsdale said:


> Let me clear some of this up.
> 
> Tree Walkers International is technically a _project_ under Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE), which is a certified 501c3 non-profit with the IRS and serves as an umbrella/incubator organization for small startups and/or grassroots efforts, which is what TWI is (this is why all donation checks must be made out to SEE and not TWI). So by default we share SEE's non-profit status and determination, 9-digit code, etc.


Soooo... care to change that website banner yet? 

wait wait... I know whats going to happen... you're going split hairs to suit your own agenda and say that because it is a project of SEE, TWI doesnt count as a charity? right?



By the way... I just want to draw some attention to these two quotes here:


savethefrogs said:


> On another topic, I am extremely pleased that you all dedicate pages to discussing our efforts. We will continue to spread our message of amphibian conservation to the distant corners of the planet (and throughout your neighborhood as well) to ensure that amphibian populations survive in the wild far into the future.





savethefrogs said:


> Thanks for your support, and please do keep discussing our work.


statements like this REAK of arrogance and are only going to help cheapen your message and relegate you to the likes of another stupid "save the animals" organization. I do not respect a single person that truly believes in their convoluted and radical message, and I will never support yours if you continue to come here and act like them.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

savethefrogs said:


> Hi,
> I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
> Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.
> 
> ...


See, Kerry, this is a problem. Michael came on here seemingly genuinely interested in discussing pet keeper's views on amphibian ownership. While he was not ideal in discussing all of the points brought up, he did so in a respectful way and seemed genuinely interested in what others had to say. It looked to me as though there were some folks here who were open to discussion, which was an improvement over interactions with you.

Then you come on and just destroy it. You post a very arrogant message and totally ruin any gains that Michael may have made.

Now, as I pointed out before, STF is not about conservation. It never has been. If you had experience in conservation, you'd know the difference between conservation and preservation. Conservation implies sustainable use. Preservation does not (it implies no use, which is what you have been advocating). Like I told Michael, this is a well discussed topic in conservation biology. So, not only is STF not the first charity devoted to amphibian conservation, but it also is not devoted to amphibian conservation, but amphibian preservation.

So, to be clear, STF is not the first charity devoted to amphibian conservation for two other reasons. And, it would appear that STF actually encourages the possible spread of chytrid based on its "natives only" position because if they get out, it's not that bad. And STF comes here to demonize a bunch of people who are interested in amphibian conservation (and actual science based conservation, not emotion based preservation). You obviously have not spoken with any management agencies since I would bet they would laugh at your positions.

Kerry, you're the problem, quite simply. I'm sorry that Michael had been open to discussion only to have you so quickly erase anything he gained. I can pretty well guarantee that similar hostility will be seen at pet expos as long as a PETA activist is at the helm. I know if I see STF at a pet expo, I plan on having a long discussion with the person manning the table to let them know how misguided the organization is. I've already done so with folks emailing me about STF.


----------



## Trickishleaf (Jun 29, 2012)

savethefrogs said:


> Hi,
> I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
> Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.
> 
> ...


This post sounds like an emotionally driven statement, written by someone who has no working knowledge of human behavior. Adding a Ph. D. tag to an emotionally charged post does not make it scientific, or lend credence to your claims.
By your logic, zoos should not exist, and all animals should be found only in the wild. You will garner very little support while maintaining this philosophy.

Hypothetical situation: A cure is discovered for cancer. It can only be synthesized from a rare frog species. Your stance says that the frog should be left alone, and completely undisturbed. Reality says the pharmaceutical companies would have every poacher in the world scouring that native habitat for those frogs. Logical people would capture small amounts of frogs and breed them in captivity so as to disturb the frog population as little as possible, while also allowing cancer to be cured.

This is an extreme example, but in my mind, shows how impractical your solution to the problem truly is. By your statement in bold above, you villify ANY usage of any useful or helpful resource obtained from wildlife, period.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

savethefrogs said:


> Hi,
> I have clarified this in the past for you all, and now I will do it again:
> Public Charity is an official IRS-designation for nonprofit organizations that have been registered with the IRS and approved as having 501(c)(3) status. You can read more about public charities on the IRS website, Internal Revenue Service. SAVE THE FROGS! is a public charity, Treewalkers to the best of my knowledge is not. If they are, then they should have a determination letter from the IRS. As such, our statement that SAVE THE FROGS! is America's first and only public charity dedicated to amphibian conservation is true.


As was pointed out before TreeWalkers is a 501c3 nonprofit, and oddly enough was started well before your Save The Frogs campaign... Do you intend to change the misinformation on your site now? Obviously it has been pointed out before since you are claiming that you explained this all before.... How much of an effort did you make to verify that your claim was accurate? 

Some comments,

Ed


----------

