# Ethics/Legality of Owning Tomato Frogs



## jbherpin

Are these frogs legal to own? I thought they were critically endangered? A local pet shop is selling them @ $17. Does this shop have the right to sell this species?

All my thanks!

JBear


----------



## ilovejaden

Depends on which subspecies of the tomato frog were talking about...there is three to my knowledge...the only one illegal out of the three is Dyscophus antongilii correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you seen the Guineti?


----------



## jbherpin

ilovejaden said:


> Depends on which subspecies of the tomato frog were talking about...there is three to my knowledge...the only one illegal out of the three is Dyscophus antongilii correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you seen the Guineti?


My wife works at Petsmart. She has a coworker that is a frog enthusiast. She bought the frog from another local shop. I have not seen the frog in person. My wife saw it, maybe I will google image search all ssp of tomato frog for her to attempt to identify it. All my thanks! If they are not legal to sell here, I intended to make the shop aware, in a respectful, private manner.

A side note issue I would like to highlight/seek an opinion on is the regulatory practices concerning pet shops. Are these stores EVER auditted unannounced, or are they simply free to operate as long as no one has the background/intelligence to recognize a *potential* illegal species on the sale rack? 

All my thanks again!

JBear


----------



## EvilLost

I fully admit that I may be biased but I *HATE* pet stores with a passion. Corporations are legally obligated to care about nothing but profits....they don't care about humans and they damn sure don't care about animals...and the animal laws are a joke.


IMHO, if you have evidence of petsmart or any other major chain doing something illegal, I would take it directly to the cops/DA and not be "nice" about it. By letting them slide on it at your local store, it will not put any pressure on the company to change their policies. If its a small mom/pop store, different story...but I can't COUNT the number of petsmart/petcos I have walked through where I could easily spot all sorts of husbandry errors.... 


I can't comment on the "unannounced audits" but as a general rule, even with complaints, without evidence, they are pretty much free to practice..... the laws surrounding these (at the state+federal level) are a joke; lobbyists control them and its quite obvious (for example, certain humane treatment laws do not apply to lab mice and other lab animals...)


----------



## jbherpin

EvilLost said:


> I fully admit that I may be biased but I *HATE* pet stores with a passion. Corporations are legally obligated to care about nothing but profits....they don't care about humans and they damn sure don't care about animals...and the animal laws are a joke.
> 
> 
> IMHO, if you have evidence of petsmart or any other major chain doing something illegal, I would take it directly to the cops/DA and not be "nice" about it. By letting them slide on it at your local store, it will not put any pressure on the company to change their policies. If its a small mom/pop store, different story...but I can't COUNT the number of petsmart/petcos I have walked through where I could easily spot all sorts of husbandry errors....
> 
> 
> I can't comment on the "unannounced audits" but as a general rule, even with complaints, without evidence, they are pretty much free to practice..... the laws surrounding these (at the state+federal level) are a joke; lobbyists control them and its quite obvious (for example, certain humane treatment laws do not apply to lab mice and other lab animals...)


The "chain" that is selling these is "Pet Supplies Plus". I agree with you almost entirely. The part I disagree with is going straight to authorities. Perhaps the store manager struck a deal with someone not knowing the legality(or even having the insight to question it) of propogating this species? Maybe they were CB examples, and the seller was very good at misdirection? These are some examples of why I would approach them with a degree of humility. If the owner does not care/does not want to hear, then, perhaps, a call is in order...

JBear


----------



## jeffr

There are 3-4 dealers selling Tomato frogs on Kingsnake


----------



## frogparty

tomato frogs have been consistently available for a long long time. Large chains only acquire animals from distributors large enough to supply multiple locations, not individual breeders. Guarantee that these are legal. Dont make yourself out a fool by rushing to the authorities to tattle on someone selling a perfectly legal frog


----------



## ilovejaden

theyre selling legal tomato frogs. Dyscophus antongilii are the only tomato frogs that are illegal in the pet trade.


----------



## frogparty

A prime example of why latin names are so important


----------



## jeffr

ilovejaden said:


> theyre selling legal tomato frogs. Dyscophus antongilii are the only tomato frogs that are illegal in the pet trade.


That's what I figured. I always see Tomato frogs for sale


----------



## EvilLost

frogparty said:


> tomato frogs have been consistently available for a long long time. Large chains only acquire animals from distributors large enough to supply multiple locations, not individual breeders. Guarantee that these are legal. Dont make yourself out a fool by rushing to the authorities to tattle on someone selling a perfectly legal frog


I think you misunderstood my post. Its a waste of everyone's time if you are merely running to the cops everytime you think someone might have done something illegal....but if you have actual evidence that these are illegal frogs, I would still go to the authorities on any big chain. 



I agree on giving the owner of a small mom+pop store the benefit of the doubt and letting them correct things, but when it comes to a big chain I don't have any pity. Huge chains have no excuse for making such mistakes imho.



It sounds like they are probably legal, but good to be aware nonetheless.


----------



## frogparty

you dont seem to understand me. Big chains, due to the nature of their animal source, are FAR LESS LIKELY to be selling anything illegal than are mom and pop shops. For example, youd never see asian arowanas in a big chain fish shop, but I know a fish store in Seattle that used to have them on several occasions. Because big chains have to rely on wholesalers to supply multiple locations, and those wholesalers records fall under scrutiny, they nearly ALWAYS abide by the rules.


----------



## Ed

frogparty said:


> A prime example of why latin names are so important


Working backwards.. there is actually a lot of debate on whether or not 
Dyscophus antongilii is actually a species in it's own right or it may simply be a color variation of D. guineti... See for example the discussion here http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-k...dule/@random44d9801f2f829/1155104845_P203.pdf 

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

D. antongilii are perfectly legal if they (or parent stock) were imported legally prior to the CITES I classification. There are a few people working with this species now and when/if they offer them, totally legal. If they cross international lines, they'll need CITES I permits with are not given for commercial trade. That is only if they cross international boundaries. 




ilovejaden said:


> theyre selling legal tomato frogs. Dyscophus antongilii are the only tomato frogs that are illegal in the pet trade.


----------



## Ed

EvilLost said:


> IMHO, if you have evidence of petsmart or any other major chain doing something illegal, I would take it directly to the cops/DA and not be "nice" about it.


The local cops and DA are highly unlikely to act on a claim of illegal sale of exotic pets since they 1) don't have jurisdiction (if anything it would require USF&W to investigate), 2) would have a poor understanding of the legalities required. 




EvilLost said:


> I can't comment on the "unannounced audits" but as a general rule, even with complaints, without evidence, they are pretty much free to practice..... the laws surrounding these (at the state+federal level) are a joke; lobbyists control them and its quite obvious (for example, certain humane treatment laws do not apply to lab mice and other lab animals...)


Hmm.. based on your comments, I get the impression that you either don't understand the legalities around lab animals or are going off accusations popular in some animal rights circuits. There are significant barriers to "inhumane" treatment of lab animals that are policed on multiple levels starting with IACUC committees.. Even though rodents of the genus Mus are excluded from enforcement under the USDA's animal welfare act, they end up with significant protection under the required IACUC committee's regulations..... 
see for example Welcome To IACUC
Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> D. antongilii are perfectly legal if they (or parent stock) were imported legally prior to the CITES I classification. There are a few people working with this species now and when/if they offer them, totally legal. If they cross international lines, they'll need CITES I permits with are not given for commercial trade. That is only if they cross international boundaries.


Actually there is considerable controversy about thier legalities.. since in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of institutions sent thier frogs to a researcher at a California University for breeding (since at that time all reproduction of D. antongilii was via hormonal injection) with the goal to send out and form a sustainable population of the frogs. The researcher bred the frogs and then sold breeding pairs and froglets to the hobby while claiming on paperwork that those frogs were deceased. The froglets showing up in the pet trade sparked an investigation resulting in arrest of the researcher and recovery of as many animals as possible. So there is a significant chance that anyone in the USA with D. antongilii has "tainted frogs" which if sold across state borders (or exported) could result in a Lacy Act investigation. 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

okay...I'll ask the dummy question...why are these particular frogs illegal. I too have seen them for sale...certainly would not be aware of differences between the species...or that they might be illegal...am interested...


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Those specimens might be of dubious origin, but previously WC animals legally came in before they were placed on CITES. I remember seeing quite a few animals at the wholesalers.



Ed said:


> Actually there is considerable controversy about thier legalities.. since in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of institutions sent thier frogs to a researcher at a California University for breeding (since at that time all reproduction of D. antongilii was via hormonal injection) with the goal to send out and form a sustainable population of the frogs. The researcher bred the frogs and then sold breeding pairs and froglets to the hobby while claiming on paperwork that those frogs were deceased. The froglets showing up in the pet trade sparked an investigation resulting in arrest of the researcher and recovery of as many animals as possible. So there is a significant chance that anyone in the USA with D. antongilii has "tainted frogs" which if sold across state borders (or exported) could result in a Lacy Act investigation.
> 
> Ed


----------



## ilovejaden

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Those specimens might be of dubious origin, but previously WC animals legally came in before they were placed on CITES. I remember seeing quite a few animals at the wholesalers.


When was this??


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

It had to be a long time ago....at least 12-15 years.



ilovejaden said:


> When was this??


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> It had to be a long time ago....at least 12-15 years.


 
Well that would be odd considering that they were listed in CITES appendix one on Oct 22, *1987*.... currently the average life span in captivity is estimated to be less than 8 years..... 

Ed


----------



## phender

FWIW, I have been to fish wholesalers and pet shops both when Fish and Game officers have walked through looking for illegal animals. I know the inspection of the wholesalers was random. I don't know whether the inspection of the local fish store was random or in response to a complaint, but they were there looking.


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

The the specimens I saw available must have been the "grey" specimens mentioned before.

Thanks you for filling me in.



Ed said:


> Well that would be odd considering that they were listed in CITES appendix one on Oct 22, *1987*.... currently the average life span in captivity is estimated to be less than 8 years.....
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

Judy S said:


> okay...I'll ask the dummy question...why are these particular frogs illegal. I too have seen them for sale...certainly would not be aware of differences between the species...or that they might be illegal...am interested...


Hi Judy,

D. antongilii were listed as a CITES I species (most restrictive classification against international trade) because at that time, they were believed to only be found around one small area in Madagascar. That listing heavily restricts the ability to import and export them. Tomato frogs are believed to have a relatively short lifespan (compared to some other species) and back in the early 1990s, there were very few successful reproductions of the frog. 
So what makes them illegal is 1) if they remain thier own species, then they are protected under CITES prohibiting export and import without a special permit (which is not granted for pet trade)
2) they were hard to breed successfully back when trade shut down, meaning that the chance that any are descended from totally legal captive bred animals is highly dubious at best 
3) many of the captive bred animals were illegally aquired which means that they and thier descendents under the Lacy act are illegal

Ed


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

Didn't Sandfire once keep and breed this species?

Wasn't a breeding of this species reported in the vivarium in the 1990's by a private hobbyist?



Ed said:


> Hi Judy,
> 
> D. antongilii were listed as a CITES I species (most restrictive classification against international trade) because at that time, they were believed to only be found around one small area in Madagascar. That listing heavily restricts the ability to import and export them. Tomato frogs are believed to have a relatively short lifespan (compared to some other species) and back in the early 1990s, there were very few successful reproductions of the frog.
> So what makes them illegal is 1) if they remain thier own species, then they are protected under CITES prohibiting export and import without a special permit (which is not granted for pet trade)
> 2) they were hard to breed successfully back when trade shut down, meaning that the chance that any are descended from totally legal captive bred animals is highly dubious at best
> 3) many of the captive bred animals were illegally aquired which means that they and thier descendents under the Lacy act are illegal
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Didn't Sandfire once keep and breed this species?
> 
> Wasn't a breeding of this species reported in the vivarium in the 1990's by a private hobbyist?


If I remember correctly Sandfire bred D. guineti or D. insularis for the pet trade.. 

If I also remember correctly at that time, there was a report of a captive breeding involving a large number of frogs in a greenhouse. It was to my knowledge never replicated and the offspring that were saved and paired up did not breed unless induced via hormones. I believe the original reproduction was discussed in De Vosjoli P. & Mailloux R., 1990 - Breeding on thin ice: the husbandry and propagation of the Malagasy Tomato Frogs, Dyscophus antongilii and D. insularis. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Herpetological Symposium on Captive Propagation & Husbandry


----------



## jbherpin

Ed-

In your estimation, would it be unethical to buy this species from a pet shop, if not illegal under the Lacey Act? This was my original thought regarding the sale/trade of this species. If 8 years is considered a general cap on life expectancy, than, as you eluded to, any and all animals present here today are in violation of the Lacey Act. Is this correct? All my thanks!

JBear


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

The species in question is not available openingly, let alone a pet store. D. guineti and D. insularius are perfectly legal in all ways.



jbherpin said:


> Ed-
> 
> In your estimation, would it be unethical to buy this species from a pet shop, if not illegal under the Lacey Act? This was my original thought regarding the sale/trade of this species. If 8 years is considered a general cap on life expectancy, than, as you eluded to, any and all animals present here today are in violation of the Lacey Act. Is this correct? All my thanks!
> 
> JBear


----------



## Ed

jbherpin said:


> Ed-
> 
> In your estimation, would it be unethical to buy this species from a pet shop, if not illegal under the Lacey Act? This was my original thought regarding the sale/trade of this species. If 8 years is considered a general cap on life expectancy, than, as you eluded to, any and all animals present here today are in violation of the Lacey Act. Is this correct? All my thanks!
> 
> JBear


The frogs you are seeing aren't antongilii which is the protected species (although this may change depending on how the systematics works out). Most of the ones I've looked at were D. guineti since it is much redder than insularis (and thus more popular). 

Ed


----------



## jbherpin

Blue_Pumilio said:


> The species in question is not available openingly, let alone a pet store. D. guineti and D. insularius are perfectly legal in all ways.





Ed said:


> The frogs you are seeing aren't antongilii which is the protected species (although this may change depending on how the systematics works out). Most of the ones I've looked at were D. guineti since it is much redder than insularis (and thus more popular).
> 
> Ed


*All my thanks to both of you for the good information*. 

Are the other subspecies that ARE legal to sell/trade readily captive bred, or are these most likely wild caught examples? This would greatly influence my decision to buy.

JBear


----------



## Ed

Lots of captive bred guineti around so you shouldn't be too worried about it. 

Ed


----------



## EvilLost

Ed said:


> The local cops and DA are highly unlikely to act on a claim of illegal sale of exotic pets since they 1) don't have jurisdiction (if anything it would require USF&W to investigate), 2) would have a poor understanding of the legalities required.
> 
> Hmm.. based on your comments, I get the impression that you either don't understand the legalities around lab animals or are going off accusations popular in some animal rights circuits. There are significant barriers to "inhumane" treatment of lab animals that are policed on multiple levels starting with IACUC committees.. Even though rodents of the genus Mus are excluded from enforcement under the USDA's animal welfare act, they end up with significant protection under the required IACUC committee's regulations.....
> see for example Welcome To IACUC
> Some comments,
> 
> Ed


I was merely referencing the Animal Welfare Act as you correctly mentioned. It is reassuring to know they have protections elsewhere ( I had never heard of the IACUC before) but that doesn't really resolve the issue that they shouldn't be exempt from the AWA to begin with. 

I am looking at this IACUC website and it says that "The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is a self-regulating entity that, according to U.S. federal law, must be established by institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes to oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program." However, I don't see any references to any actual laws....?

What law mandates and regulates these guys? The website you linked makes the claims but I don't see any direct legal cites...is this international?


EDIT: IACUC.ORG is produced by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS).....and AALAS is "The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) is a membership association of professionals employed around the world in academia, government, and private industry who are dedicated to the humane care and treatment of laboratory animals, as well as the quality research that leads to scientific gains that benefit people and animals." 

Can you clarify where/how these protections are established exactly?This seems to be an independent group


BTW: Why do you think that the cops or DA won't have jurisdiction? Police jurisdiction is independent of "lawyer" jurisdiction....and there are other causes of action besides the federal act (such as potential state violations).


----------



## Ed

EvilLost said:


> I was merely referencing the Animal Welfare Act as you correctly mentioned. It is reassuring to know they have protections elsewhere ( I had never heard of the IACUC before) but that doesn't really resolve the issue that they shouldn't be exempt from the AWA to begin with.


While Mus and Rattus are excluded from AWA, labs and facilities that work with both of those genera have other things to try and meet (see for example "Information resources on the care and welfare of rodents"). Becoming accredited under those standards is required if an institution is going to recieve Public Health Service (PHS) funding... 



EvilLost said:


> I am looking at this IACUC website and it says that "The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is a self-regulating entity that, according to U.S. federal law, must be established by institutions that use laboratory animals for research or instructional purposes to oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care and use program." However, I don't see any references to any actual laws....?
> 
> What law mandates and regulates these guys? The website you linked makes the claims but I don't see any direct legal cites...is this international?
> 
> 
> EDIT: IACUC.ORG is produced by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS).....and AALAS is "The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) is a membership association of professionals employed around the world in academia, government, and private industry who are dedicated to the humane care and treatment of laboratory animals, as well as the quality research that leads to scientific gains that benefit people and animals."
> 
> Can you clarify where/how these protections are established exactly?This seems to be an independent group


The AWA while not regulating work with rodents in the genus Mus or Rattus, requires all institutions that work with lab animals of any type to form a IACUC committee which is to set the rules by which all animals are worked with in a humane and responsible manner. These committees are required for recieving funding for research (such as from the NIH) so while mice and rats aren't directly covered by the AWA, they are indirectly covered through the mandate of the IACUC. IACUC committees are surprisingly powerful since they have to make sure that the animals meet all internal requirements since if they don't make that happen, when reviewed for compliance they can lose their accredation and thus they can not only lose future grants but current funding as well could be shut off. If a researcher doesn't follow the requirements set forth by IACUC they can be terminated from their position. Choose an institution and google thier name and IACUC... The amount of power an IACUC committee wields may not look like much until you have to deal with one or see it in action.. 



EvilLost said:


> BTW: Why do you think that the cops or DA won't have jurisdiction? Police jurisdiction is independent of "lawyer" jurisdiction....and there are other causes of action besides the federal act (such as potential state violations).


The violations discussed in the thread so far were for what would have been federal violations under the Lacy Act.... The jurisdiction would be for federal officers. 
Other than a dog trapped in a car in the sun, have you made a complaint to the police about what you perceive is an animal welfare issue or spoken to a DA about it? 
I went out on a number of calls with USF&W and local enforcement agencies to deal with exotics and I can only remember one time that the local police were involved... that was because a woman was threatened by her husband with his pet rattlesnakes and she called the threat in.. so while he was arrested for an usual death threat, the local animal enforcement was left to deal with the herps and they called the zoo... There is also a lot of precedent where people involved in illegal possession of exotic pets do not get the same level of treatment as others.. I can think of a case that is very typical of it...a guy gets busted for collecting endangered wildlife in a state park, violations of the Lacy Act (commerce and transporting of illegally aquired wildlife across state borders), and a lot of additional offenses and was given probation and no fines because to paraphrase the judges at both the state and federal level "I have real criminal to see on my docket, I don't have time for this s#&*t". This is also reflected in the history.. look at how much time Anson Wong actually got versus the number of charges they had filed against him or even Tom Crutchfield.... 
Local enforcement agencies other than animal welfare or state wildlife enforcement are going to rate most animal issues (other than say a dog locked in a car in the summer), below that of a jaywalker or not wearing a seatbelt.... 

Some comments,

Ed


----------

