# Adelphobates castaneoticus “Brazil Nut frog”



## deadsea60 (Sep 15, 2012)

I have heard they are illegal in the US. I am in the UK and have seen some for sale. What are they like to deal with?
Thanks


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

Like Ranitomeya, eats Melos and springs. Breeding takes place in Brazil nut pods (obviously). They like it on the warmer side, very humid. In nature they are found foraging among the leaf litter, as well in vivaria, so a forest floor biotope is essential. Lots of leaf litter and broad leafed plants to make a shaded understory.
Edit: they are illegal anywhere outside of Brazil.

D


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Dendroguy said:


> Edit: they are illegal anywhere outside of Brazil.
> 
> D


They are actually illegal to own in Brazil as well lol.

I'm pretty sure no frogs have been legally exported out of Brazil. The Brazilian government would see every single one of those frogs in captivity as being illegal. I think this would also put A. quinquevittatus in the "illegal" category

However local governments adopt their own laws on the subject, so I don't know if they are considered "illegal" by the European governments. Here's a thread on the subject:

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/5603-d-castaneoticus-legal-status.html


----------



## deadsea60 (Sep 15, 2012)

The shop in the Uk selling them is very renowned here. I would be very surprised if they were illegal!! 
(shop is dartfrog.co.uk)


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> I think this would also put A. quinquevittatus in the "illegal" category


I believe they were legally exported from Peru, back when many thumbs were lumped under _Dendobates quinquevittatus._


They also occur in Bolivia. I have no idea what their laws are though.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Out of curiosity did brazil never legally export any frogs because it was actually against the law since the beginning of the hobby or are they just saying they never said it was OK?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Brazil doesn't really allow the exportation of any of it's native species to my knowledge.

Here's the story of how they got into the hobby from Pat Nabor's website:

"This frog is considered by some to be illegal in the United States, in fact anywhere out side of Brazil. The government of Brazil has had a policy of not allowing the export of their wild life, and in general dart frogs have not been exported from Brazil. The story on the Brazil nut frogs is that in the early nineties, a few specimens were allowed to be exported from Brazil for use by a US institution, which shall remain nameless. These frogs apparently were released to the institution on the condition that they remain the property of the Brazilian government, and that any and all offspring would also remain the property of the Brazilian government. In addition the frogs were not to be released to any other institutions or the public. Obviously this condition was not followed, and the frogs were released to another institution, which then released offspring to the US frog hobby. I am unsure how seriously to take this, there are numerous frogs in the US hobby whose ancestors came from illegal sources, or were never legally exported from the country of origin. This list would include any frog that originates in Brazil, such as A. quinquevittatus, and A. galactonotus. To the best of my knowledge neither frog has been legally exported from Brazil, but both found there way to Europe, and then captive bred offspring were sent to the US with “legal” paperwork, generated by European governments which were not very particular about the frogs paper trail, and documentation of the breeders frogs."

Saurian Enterprises, Inc :: Adelphobates castaneoticus “Brazil Nut frog”

BASICALLY, the frogs are like chinese pandas -- the frogs are the property of the brazilian government, and any and all offspring would also be property of the government.


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

But how could anyone make that statement providing they came in during the wave of exports in the 90s? Could one not just label them as 'Peruvian' and they would be perfectly legal?

D


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Quinqs are Peruvian, not castis. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Dendroguy said:


> But how could anyone make that statement providing they came in during the wave of exports in the 90s? Could one not just label them as 'Peruvian' and they would be perfectly legal?
> 
> D


Are you asking this about castaneoticus, or quinquevittatus?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I believe they were legally exported from Peru, back when many thumbs were lumped under _Dendobates quinquevittatus._
> 
> 
> They also occur in Bolivia. I have no idea what their laws are though.


I have no idea where they came from (way before I got into the hobby), but the info from Pat Nabor's website makes it sound like they came from Brazil.

Here's a link to their range:
IUCN Red List maps

It crosses over into Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. But I'd say 90% of their range is in Brazil

Also consider galactonotus, a more common frog in the hobby. According to IUCN, they are endemic to Brazil, so they would be similarly illegal, since any animals would've had to have been smuggled illegally out of the country.
IUCN Red List maps


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

Sadly, there 'is a chance' that if USFW decided to check out your frogs and saw them.. and knew what they were, they could confiscate your whole collection. These frogs have been in the hobby for a very long time, so I don't know what would happen. It's always a possiblity. Sadly, though there aren't many in the hobby, they seem to breed fairly well so it's not an issue of constantly needing more.

-Nish


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> Quinqs are Peruvian, not castis. Sorry for the confusion.


What Davis is referring to is the fact that several species were imported as quinquevittatus before they were later split out into their own species. However this is not accepted by USF&W. This has been repeatedly hashed out on this and other forums. 
This is the actual quote I got from USF&W when I asked about this species (posted in the discussion http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/wanted/71187-adelphobates-castaneoticus-4.html#post624799) 



> Dear Ed,
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry regarding Federal laws and regulations concerning the possession and/or sale of Brazil Nut Poison Arrow (Dart) Frog (Dendrobates castaneoticus) from Brazil. Our mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
> 
> ...


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Exactly why I don't own them - and anyone who really values the frogs they keep shouldn't own them either.

I'm not about to give any government entity a reason to confiscate my frogs.

Not that this is *likely* to happen - but by not having them you cut the odds down to nothing (in regards to Adelphobates castaneoticus anyhow).

s


nish07 said:


> Sadly, there 'is a chance' that if USFW decided to check out your frogs and saw them.. and knew what they were, they could confiscate your whole collection. These frogs have been in the hobby for a very long time, so I don't know what would happen. It's always a possiblity. Sadly, though there aren't many in the hobby, they seem to breed fairly well so it's not an issue of constantly needing more.
> 
> -Nish


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Hey Ed, since galacs are also from Brazil, shouldn't they be under a similar legality?


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

For the record I am not asking how they got in the hobby more of when exactly did Brazil make an official law that no one could export any of them?


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Brazil has a long history of not allowing the export of pretty much any of it's endemic wildlife. I can't _exactly_ pinpoint when it became illegal, but the earliest mention I can find of it in the Brazilian legislature is in the 1967 Fauna Protection Act (Law n. 5.197/1967). Which would predate any exports.

Here is the law translated by google:
Google Translate

And here it is untranslated (if that's how you roll):
L5197

The first article states "The animals of any species at any stage of their development and naturally living out of captivity, constituting the wildlife and their nests, shelters and natural breeding are State property, its use, persecution, destruction, hunting is prohibited or harvesting."
This basically means that all wildlife are the property of the Brazilian government (the State) and it is illegal to harvest them (collect/remove them from their natural habitat).

The third article states "Trade in specimens of wild animals and objects products and involving in their hunting, persecution, destruction or harvesting is prohibited." Which explicitly says that engaging in the trade of wildlife is illegal.

Sooooo in brief, castaneoticus and galactonotus are illegal to own (both here in the US, as well as in Brazil) in the eyes of the Brazilian government. The US government, however, is a different matter


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

hypostatic said:


> Hey Ed, since galacs are also from Brazil, shouldn't they be under a similar legality?


Not quite. In the case of galactonus they were illegally taken to Europe, then legally imported into the USA.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

So are Brazilian Yellow Head D. tinctorius illegal too?


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

Pubfiction said:


> So are Brazilian Yellow Head D. tinctorius illegal too?


All Brazilian frogs are illegal to own but you will probably only get in trouble for owning/selling castaneoticus. The galactonotus are very widespread and were sort of imported in a legal yet not quite legal way.

Castaneoticus are very specific and not too common. If USFW wanted to take your frogs for some reason they could.

A tinc morph would probably not get noticed as illegal because of its coloration.

-Nish


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Not quite. In the case of galactonus they were illegally taken to Europe, then legally imported into the USA.


Yes, see for example http://www.phyllomedusa.esalq.usp.br/articles/volume11/number2/11295115.pdf 

It should be noted that one of the ways some smuggled animals get into the hobby is because some EU countries donate confiscated animals to Institutions or even hobbyists and the offspring of those animals are then allowed to be traded. Not all countries accept this method of legal production and it is often on a species by species basis. In the US, confiscated animals that are donated to institutions can remain the property of USF&W who has the final determination of any transfers of ownership. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Sorry if this is off topic, but then what keeps mysteriosus (and other illegally smuggled frogs) from coming into the US "legally"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

hypostatic said:


> Sorry if this is off topic, but then what keeps mysteriosus (and other illegally smuggled frogs) from coming into the US "legally"


USF&W. Import papers have to be approved... if they aren't approved, then the shipment cannot legally enter the US. However it has to be noted that all because a shipment was allowed into the country, USF&W reserves the right to change their mind if they believe there was evidence that a shipment was laundered or in some other way illegal. 

For example with the castenoticus, they were legally imported into the US for science and research purposes at a specified institution that prohibited their release to the pet industry (or even release to other institutions). As a result all of the castenoticus in the hobby are considered tainted and as such prosecutable under the Lacy Act and potentially under the RICO act as the sale and transfer between hobbyists is done despite the widespread knowledge that these frogs are illegal... 

This is also a concern with animals that were obtained from institutions that have IACUC committees such as zoos and colleges. If the animals were released in violation of an institutions policies or without the approval of the required committee(s) (for example, zoos and aquariums have ADC committees (aquisition and disposition committees in addition to IACUC that require compliance to set criteria). Animals obtained without meeting these criteria are also potential violations of Lacy Act and prosecutable along with seizure of all potential animals. For example, there are rumors of some ESA species of anurans that were obtained clandestinely from institutions in the hobby. These animals were not obtained with the appropriate paperwork required for transfer of these animals. As a result, if anyone is caught with them, they would be prosecutable under the Endangered Species Act, the Lacy Act (if any transaction crossed the borders of a state), and potentially the RICO act if there is anything that appears like an organized way these frogs are being passed around in certain circles. 

Mysteriosus aren't considered legal in a number of EU countries much less here in the US so the chances of bringing them in from the EU at this time is pretty much not going to happen. Now if a program that is supported down in their range begins to breed them for export we will probably see legal imports which sadly people will use to launder the illegal ones in the various countries. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

And sadly, that may be why Understory Enterprises has not worked to get mysteriosus legal. I think they have said to me they could. However, the cost to do that is very high and as soon as the paperwork was available to export, all of the captive bred ones would go onto the market and flood it making it impossible for them to get their money back. 

They can't just give money away or they won't be able to continue doing what they're doing. So, there's another way smuggling has had a negative effect.

-Nish


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Non refundable payment up front in full could guarantee the return of the investment.


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

mydumname said:


> Non refundable payment up front in full could guarantee the return of the investment.


Mysteriosus are so easily gotten in Europe it's silly. They advertize them on websites. UE sells more frogs overseas (apparently Japan is very big in buying darts) than they do in Canada and the U.S. They aren't going to pay UE prices for them. Sadly, I think UE sold many many less vanzolini than they could have and the European line vanzolini are listed as European and sell for less. People now buy mostly European vanzolini due mostly to price.

-Nish


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

If they don't get enough interest then don't do it. And refund. If they do then cool...proceed.
People now buy mostly European vanzolini....you say that as if there was a choice before. Ue just offered them recently. At a time when everyone already had vanzos. Unfortunate timing.

Most people don't have the mysteriosus in US.

Anyway...back to Castis.


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

All of those European vanzos had been in the country for a long time before U.E. decided to sell them. Seemingly a week to a month before U.E. started selling them (which was like 4+ years ago now so not too recently), a ton of vanzolini ads started popping up knowing they would be 'legal' and they could make money off of it. They are not difficult to breed. UE took a chance that there would be enough interest and not as many 'hidden' in the pet trade that it'd be worth it. It would not surprise me if they lost money on that.

As for mysteriosus, there are plenty of them in this country. You just don't see them. You would, though, when they became legal. They are also very easy to breed.

There are also probably a lot of castis in this country. Those won't ever be legal because getting Brazil to export frogs is not something that I think will happen in 10-20 years if ever. They seem to be a little more difficult to breed in that they seem to stop for periods from what I've heard. Maybe some people have prolific groups but that's not generally what I've heard before. Then again this was like 5+ years ago.

-Nish


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

If anyone has some factual info on the vanzo release please pm me. I am curious of a few things touched on here and wouldn't mind throwing a few questions out there.

Pm please.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

So how were Brazilian yellow heads "legalized"?


----------



## nish07 (Mar 16, 2008)

It's probably not the easiest thing to say a tinc is definitely from Brazil because of it's coloration the same way that one specific species like mysteriosus or castaneoticus which looks a one specific way and is definitely known to only come from one specific area (or Country) and are a specific 'species' that have never had legal export papers are definitely illegal.

If someone sees a tinctorius it is a tinc... It is the same 'species' as any other tinc... It could have come from anywhere. I don't know that they can say that it's definitely Brazilian. Sort of like if Atelopus were legally exported from Guyana in 10 colors and a Bluish one was just south into Brazil, they probably couldn't say for sure it was collected and exported from Brazil. 

Basically they have gotten into the pet trade and are all over so they may not be considered legal but probably would be difficult to identify as a 'species from a country that was illegally exported'.

Also, there are red flags for species like mysteriosus. Generally, someone from USFW would know right away what it was and that it was illegal if they saw it and they already have learned what to do if they do see it (confiscate/press charges).

-Nish


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Pubfiction said:


> So how were Brazilian yellow heads "legalized"?


Using the word legalized implies that it is a legitimate way to get a species into the hobby.. The word to really use is laundered as that is what happens. 

I would suspect that they went into the EU and were them exported to the US as captive bred animals. At that time, there would be no flags for USF&W to catch if the export/import permits listed D. tinctorius without a descriptor like "Brazilian" yellow heads. This is because, there have been multiple legal exports of D. tinctorius from assorted countries like Suriname... In the distant past, it has also been noted that if one flew from French Guiana to France, you could avoid a number of checkpoints.. I don't know if that is still true but it's in the older literature. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

But being laundered does not mean they are legal right? USFW can just go in and say those were never imported. 

Or would it be fair to say USFW is pretty much helpless in the subspecies / morph area and will only be effective if an entire species is restricted.

As for not the easiest to say they are definitely from Brazil, well they are listed as such right on many peoples websites. I think that in most cases that would be admission of knowledge and guilt.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Pubfiction said:


> But being laundered does not mean they are legal right? USFW can just go in and say those were never imported.
> 
> Or would it be fair to say USFW is pretty much helpless in the subspecies / morph area and will only be effective if an entire species is restricted.
> 
> As for not the easiest to say they are definitely from Brazil, well they are listed as such right on many peoples websites. I think that in most cases that would be admission of knowledge and guilt.


Why don't you ask those questions of USF&W and see what they have to say? 

some comments 

Ed


----------

