# WC vs CB



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

> I'm sure all of us that have purchased recently WC frogs (because that's all there is or because of a special need) have had some die on us.





> I thing discussing WC vs CB (again) is a good idea but I would hope that those that want to do that will start their own thread. Thanks!


DONE! New thread!

So here is the question: Is there justification on a hobbyist level for buying WC frogs? 

I realize desire and greed trump all justifications and people will buy whatever they want, but a lot of decent folks seem to think they can help frog populations in the wild by purchasing frogs taken directly from their native environment. A lot of decent folks think those other folks are seriously confused. :wink: 

What do YOU think?

-Afemoralis


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

My preference would be to work with legally exported WC frogs. From the perspective of genetic diversity and nutritional growth and development, I for one can never be sure that sibling bred frogs and those fed out on FF's, springtales and crickets (if we offer even that variety) will have been given all of their requirements or at least something close to the fauna they are raised on in the wild. How does that affect their health and development and their breeding capabilities, doubt we will ever know for sure.
Now the condition in which WC frogs are exported, held and how they arrive is another thread altogether, although it seems quality of these variables has gone up quite a bit over the last few years.
One more point from me is the farm raising of Peruvian and Panamanian frogs, I view them in the same context as WC animals and would prefer to work with them over 2nd generation frogs. However with both WC and farm raised there is a much greater chance of mortality due to stress, coming home and finding dead frogs in your tank does not make the hobby more enjoyable.


----------



## amphibianfreak (Jul 21, 2004)

This should be interesting...


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

its been a while since i have gotten wild caught frogs, but the reason why i would do it woudl be to introduce a new blood line. I still wonder why captive frogs do not get as big as wild caught frogs, there must be something in theri diet that we are missing, wild caught frogs also breed more often and lay more eggs in my experience.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Afemoralis said:


> So here is the question: Is there justification on a hobbyist level for buying WC frogs?


Absolutely - if the imports were done correctly *edit* - and there is a need for WC individuals for a founder population*. Mark already mentioned the Peruvian projects - but when I was talking to Sean Stewart regarding the numbers of D. variabilis imported through INIBICO (for the Variabilis TMP) - be stated that only ~6 frogs of the ~170 that were brought in were lost due to the process. Also some of the Panamanian FR pumilio fit this bill very well. I know that Marcus (SNDF) has been working incredibly closely with the importers to improve their care and shipping - and mortality rates have dropped to next to nothing on their imports of pumilio. So that addresses the first issue - the legitmacy/nature/safety of the import.

Now - why should hobbyists work with WC frogs? The simple answer is to help establish a large enough founder population to capture >90% of the genetic variability. ASN is writing TMPs for as many amphibian species as we can - and within each - there will be recommendation for the founder population. To take D. variabilis as an example - we know that there are about 160 potential founders in the country. We would ideally like to have 70-100 in the hands of hobbyists - and manage those frogs to maintain the diversity. So - it would be important for hobbyists to acquire the imported frogs available. Now - with that being said - the founder population would be large enough that no more imports of D. variabilis would be required. But variabilis is a simple example due to the fact that the range of the population is small. If there was another population discovered that did not continue to undergo gene flow with the population we are currently managing - then they would be managed separately. If new imports of the new population occurred - it would be recommended to create a founder population of those frogs as well.

To make a counterpoint - lets look at Bastimentos pumilio. I don't have an idea of the numbers of WC founders of Bastis there are (although the Pumilio TMP is making progress with these questions) - but if there were enough to establish the founder population (as few as 20) - then there would be no real need to purchase additional WC frogs, and to reduce the import demand. Buying CB frogs would be a better option.

I think there is a dangerous interplay between trying to establish assurance colonies of amphibian species, and fueling the demand for less-than-perfect imports of frogs. If you are going to take the option of purchasing WC frogs, then I believe you have the responsibility to register the frogs in a program like ASN - so that they can be correctly managed - and that it will be known when an ideal founder population has been achieved - and when buying additional WC is no longer necessary.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Time to toss in my two cents... 

I've been working with a number of WCs lately, mostly animals that are either not established or very limitedly established in the hobby. My goal with these animals is to establish part of the founder population Oz has mentioned, and in the case of some species that are already bred, to establish more bloodlines for genetic health of the population. With these animals available CB on a consistant basis under a managed population, in theory the need for WCs would be reduced to flat out unneeded. These animals will be included as part of the TWI ASN management as I successfully breed them... which reminds me I need to register some Theloderma!

I am also hoping that a part of the proceeds produced by the frogs can be returned to help them in the wild... most of my frogs would be donating to research which would generate the information needed for conservation efforts in areas were conservation is only getting started (Indochina, Indonesia, etc). 

As for WCs brought in, resold, and ending up disapearing from the hobby for whatever reason (mostly in my opinion due to the fact that keepers are not prepared for the needs of the WC animals) its a worthless waste of life in my opinion. I realize there will always be a great loss of amphibian life as pets for whatever reason, but I rather it be CBs than the WCs. CBs in a managed population could be replaced, and bred in numbers to try and absorb the various dieoffs... where as WCs are usually pulling individuals out of a breeding population that could be detrimental to a population that science often doesn't know the status of (or even in some cases didn't know those animals existed... how many mantella species were described initially from animals imported?).

Julio, I don't actually totally agree with the CBs being smaller... I've seen many CBs that are as large or larger than their WC counterparts... granted we do tend to see smaller animals in this hobby. IME (this has been discussed many times) this has to do with stress and feeding as a juvie... tincs in particular often are sold at a tender age where the lack of feeding and the stress from changes in their environment can cuase them to be smaller than froglets left with the same keeper unti lthey were older... Scott (SMenigoz) grows moster frogs mainly because he holds them much longer and feeds them like a turkey before the holidays. Patrick's animals also probably have a much better rate of getting full sized because he doesn't sell his tinc group frogs until they are basically 1" in length. If more breeders kept to the 6+ mo route we'd probably see much larger tinc group frogs...


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I guess I should also ask how the CB vs WC debate was turned into a preservation debate? I don't know how that got pulled out of the other thread... justification? in many cases, its the only way to work with certain frogs because they are not significantly - if at all - bred in the hobby. We're selfish creatures - that's why we keep these frogs in tanks in our living room in the first place.

The biggest part of the debate of CB v WC usually has to do with the general health of WCs always being assumed that they were so much worse than CBs with preservation issues usually just an added benefit (but not as significant as the health issue for a keeper). While WCs often arrive with problems, and in extreme cases are in horrid shape, there are plenty of problems with the CBs as well... but GENERALLY a fresh WC is said to need the attentions of someone with more experience (and the help of a vet) while a CB is presumed safe, and hardier, although more expensive initially (but not in the long run). I always thought that was the bigger debate on WC vs CB on the hobbyest level.


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

Assuming the WC animals were responsibly collected and exported, widespread refusal to purchase exported frogs would send the economic message that the frogs have no value to inhabitants of frog producing countries. Devaluing the non-destructive products of undisturbed (or less disturbed) tropical land increases the incentive to simply bulldoze the forest, sell the trees and raise cows. Purchasing the responsibly produced products of tropical rainforests adds economic value to the rainforest in it's native state. The effect may be small, but I bet when you add up all the various products (frogs, reptiles, butterflies, tourists) it can have at least some small impact.

Purchasing WC frogs that were collected by pillage, of course, adds no real value to the rainforests.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

"Justification" is kind of a loaded term since it can be interpreted differently.

As was already mentioned, when done right, purchasing WC animals can provide economic incentive to preserve habitat and place value on conserving the wild populations. Rarely is this actually the case, but we have certainly seen the emergence of some good operations that are doing things right. I still worry about the long-term viability of this approach but for now, these exceptional exportations are providing a net gain for wild conservation I believe.

Regarding establishing assurance colonies for wild reintroduction, I have to be honest in saying this is more fantasy than fact. First, there is no justification for capturing wild animals for assurance colonies if there is no probabiblity for needing to reintroduce those animals in the foreseeable future. For the vast majority (perhaps all) of the pdf being imported, this is simply not the case. Those species need habitat protection to maintain existing populations, not the establishment of captive assurance colonies. Of course there are species that are threatened by chytrid, etc. that do need to be brought into assurance colonies. But that list contains very few dendobatids. And for those species that do need captive assurance colonies for reintroduction, there are conservation procedures that must be followed so traditional export/import and retail is not the right way to establish these colonies. So for the most part, I would discount establishing captive assurance colonies as a "justification" for buying wc animals unless you are working with the Amphibian Ark on very targeted and well-planned importations.

But the reality is that wc importations are going to continue to flow in whether these are "justified" or not. So then the question is, "how do we treat them responsibly?" I think the answer is to participate in ASN so that the pedigrees and provenance of the animals can be recorded and the population can be managed. The benefits of this are two-fold. The first is that IF the populations are managed to maintain genetic integrity, then we do have fall-back assurance colonies. By this I mean captive populations of animals that retain the characteristics of a reintroduction assurance colony, even if there is no foreseeable need for reintroduction. And even if reintroduction never happens, the stewards involved in management gain the experience needed to work with actual reintroduction colonies, should opportunities arise. The second beneft is that it maintains captive populations of wild type animals. This prevents us from having to repeat mistakes of other hobbies that had to go back and recapture wild type specimens after poor breeding management had nuked the genetic integrity of their wild stock. These animals are important regardless of whether they can be traced to a specific locality in the wild because they provide sustainable captive bred stock that can satisfy the market demand for wild type specimens without putting additional pressure on wild populations.

And finally, I think we should also understand that there is a middle area of wild exploitation that is neutral. By this I mean that there is no net positive or negative impact on wild populations. In other words, animals are removed at sustainable rates that allow the wild populations to remain stable. But money from the exports does not flow back into habitat protection or conservation. Purchasing such animals is not as desirable as purchasing animals where you know your money will flow back into habitat projects, but it at least does no harm.


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

I just want to jump in and say that there is a big difference between Wild Caught (WC) and Farm Raised (FR) and that you have to separate the two. The founding stock of FR is probably somewhat related and your F1's may all be siblings or cousins right out the door. I also want to reiterate what Brent said about reintroduction. The larger goal in my opinion is stable captive populations to reduce the demand for WC animals (though not necessarily FR, if those FR are sustainable). A subset of that goal is having healthy populations in captivity, but that goal is not tied to reintroduction. It is tied to managing what we have. A second benefit of management is the ability to take our lessons learned and apply them to real world conservation problems.

Marcos


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

That's a very good point about farmed raised. And there is no standard for what "farm raised" actually means so buyer beware. The last batch of blue jeans pumilio that were imported from Nicaragua were advertised as farm raised. The nearest anyone could figure is that there was a landowner who did some modest habitat management and declared his place a pumilio "farm". But it is unlikely that even most of the animals actually came from that place.

And the point that truly farm raised animals are actually captive breeding facility in range of the species is something we need to be aware of when forming Taxon Management Plans in ASN. We assume that any two WC animals are unrelated but this may not be the case for FR. Sorry, this last bit hijacks the thread some but it all seems interrelated.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

I agree it's interrelated and important to discuss...

When I posted the thread I was thinking that Farm Raised would be considered different from Wild Caught- so it's interesting to me that many people don't appear to consider them different.

And while yes 'justified' is certainly a loaded term, I hear justifications being tossed around all the time when it comes to amphibians...

1. "Well, I plan on the offspring being used for reintroduction"
2. "The habitat is being destroyed anyway" (so I'm "saving" this creature) (i.e. Mantellas)
3. My buying this frog will help increase the genetic diversity in captivity...

None of which I think have any basis in reality.

Now if the taxon management plans and ARCing come into play in a major way in the hobby, I'll be cheering loudly with everyone else- but that is future, not present.

For the majority of hobbyists, none of these will ever be a factor.

Someone earlier used the term 'pillage' and I think it is a perfect descriptor of how the vast majority of amphibian importations happen. A population (usually a breeding aggregation) is targeted and collected, and for the most part shipped off to die in sphagnum moss in a 10g.

Why would anyone who actually likes amphibians support that? We all know you can get perfectly nice homegrown frogs from the honored survivors of importations past. Or, if you really are trying to save a population from Chytrid or genetic bottlenecking, sign on with one of the 'responsible management entities' to work towards that goal. Alone isn't going to work- unless you're Gerald Durell.

So I say SHUT IT DOWN.

(legally or with your dollar-vote)

cut off for-profit importation of all but farm raised amphibians (with exceptions for institutions/academics/non-profit amphibian saviors).


Comments?

Afemoralis


(Having just watched two research populations (one in Africa, one in Peru) crash after being pillaged for the amphibian hobby- and wanting people to at least think about what they are doing when they buy a frog/salamander/caecilian for that 10g)


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Afemoralis said:


> And while yes 'justified' is certainly a loaded term, I hear justifications being tossed around all the time when it comes to amphibians...
> 
> 1. "Well, I plan on the offspring being used for reintroduction"
> 2. "The habitat is being destroyed anyway" (so I'm "saving" this creature) (i.e. Mantellas)
> ...


Not to split hairs too finely but I consider those arguments as very poor attempts to rationalize a purchase but they are not justification because the rationale is not supported.



> cut off for-profit importation of all but farm raised amphibians (with exceptions for institutions/academics/non-profit amphibian saviors).
> 
> 
> Comments?
> ...


It wouldn't bother me any but I think we should be careful not to shut down commercial imports that do pump money into habitat protection, local economies that provide an incentive for conserving amphibians, or other efforts that provide a net benefit for wild populations.

A problem with just shutting it down though, is that it likely would just create an even wider black market. What is really needed is more money for monitoring and oversight to protect wild populations. And if those resources were available, it would likely be possible to monitor and regulate populations for sustainable harvest. So I think what we really need is better monitoring, regulation, and enforcement.

But another part of this issue is that I don't quite understand why there is such a huge demand for new imports. The variety of amphibians already in captivity is pretty mind boggling and we do a pretty poor job of managing the captive populations we already have. IMO, the hobby needs to do a much better job of assuring our current captives are well managed in sustainable captive populations before we add to the burden with additional imports. Sort of a "clean up your plate before you ask for more" concept.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> with exceptions for institutions/academics/non-profit amphibian saviors


Because it seems that these are doing so much more for the hobby than the "for-profit" organizations. 
Do you know how many institutions I supply frogs to. Since abg, houston zoo, seaworld in austin, yale peabody museum, buffalo zoo, clyde peelings reptileland and numerous other institutions, research facilities, universities, etc. have all got their frogs from me and other for profit breeders....
What makes a person or institution "worthy" of getting new breeding stock or bloodlines? Is it success and dedication or title. To breed these animals you need dedication and a sense of urgency and then more dedication. 
Myself and a few other well established breeders(for profit) happily provide the majority of animals for these non profit facilities but we are not able to obtain animals from these same facilities.
What if they were the only ones who could obtain new genetic diversity?


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Frogfarm,

What does it take in terms of WC 'new blood' to keep your business up and running? Wouldn't farm raised work as well?

I know that you and other breeders supply many of the institutions with animals- and I think it would be foolish of them not to take advantage of your experience with raising the little beasts. That would seem like an ideal partnership to me.

I've got no issue with folks making a profit off of frogs. I've got an issue with people making a profit off of destroying/damaging/reducing wild frog populations.

-Afemoralis


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It takes nothing in the lines of wc to keep my business running. What happens when they are gone from the wild and we all have sibling pairs breeding? Future generations will suffer that we didn`t have enough genetic diverstity to manage captive populations to keep them going for the long term.
Personally, as a business, I can make enough off sibling pairs selling pets to the public. I can`t live w/ just that. It takes too much work and uncertainty to just have a business. I need to do something more, something for the future, to keep me doing this. I think anyone doing this for a living deserves to be able to help save the populations we have left.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I think we have to be realistic about how the private sector is managing the genes of captive stocks. Sibling pairs or not, we simply haven't developed the coordination and discipline to manage genes. That is what separates the private sector from zoos and a good reason why exchanges tend to be one-way transfers.

It only takes about 20 unrelated animals to found a captive popultion that captures most of the genetic diversity of the wild population. That number is FAR below the numbers that the vast majority of imports bring in. With cordination among the private sector, the problem of sibling pairs should not be an issue. ASN is that program.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I don`t think it`s a good reason why there are 1 way transfers. The first time I sold to the Buffalo zoo and they saw what I was capable of they should`ve took me under their wing!
If it only takes 20 animals I`m 1/5th of what`s needed for having that on all the recent pumilio imports. Are any zoos taking the initiative to save the pumilio morphs and manage them?
Sorry, you hit a nerve there.
I realize there are problems w/ for profit breeding. We are more or less in competition and have more problems w/ overbreeding than anything by our nature. We are a good resource and I believe asn is a good middle if we`re taken seriously as a true resource.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I don`t think it`s a good reason why there are 1 way transfers. The first time I sold to the Buffalo zoo and they saw what I was capable of they should`ve took me under their wing!
> If it only takes 20 animals I`m 1/5th of what`s needed for having that on all the recent pumilio imports. Are any zoos taking the initiative to save the pumilio morphs and manage them?
> Sorry, you hit a nerve there.
> I realize there are problems w/ for profit breeding. We are more or less in competition and have more problems w/ overbreeding than anything by our nature. We are a good resource and I believe asn is a good middle if we`re taken seriously as a true resource.


There are multiple reasons why the transactions are one way but one of the main ones is because of how the Zoos take a beating on this topic ( for two examples of multiple examples see http://www.animalworldnetwork.com/bsurantradou.html and http://en.allexperts.com/q/Animal-Right ... ty-zoo.htm )

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I would also suggest having a look at Ed's comments in this thread regarding the one-way exchange issue:
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 0&start=15

I agree that the reason I stated above is not the only reason, but is one of many. But we should look at the Turtle Survival Alliance and see how they have broken through this barrier. They did it by forming an organized consortium of private individuals committed to assisting in turtle conservation in a professional way. Not only does this provide some quality assurance about the husbandry that animals under this group will receive, but it also provides a single entity for zoos to interact with rather than trying to form mulitiple relationships with individuals. ASN has adopted this model at the request of people tied into the zoo community.

Although my personal reasons for being involved with ASN have nothing to do with any desire to receive animals from zoos. It seems pretty clear that as ASN matures, it will serve as a way for private individuals to have more of a partnership role with zoos. I think the ball is now in our hands to make it work.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> If it only takes 20 animals I`m 1/5th of what`s needed for having that on all the recent pumilio imports. Are any zoos taking the initiative to save the pumilio morphs and manage them?
> Sorry, you hit a nerve there.


Sorry missed the pumilio part earlier... 

No... Let me throw this back out there (and please the rest of my post before you respond Aaron...)... Why should they?? 

Dendrobates (Oophaga) pumilio are a least concern species and they would take up space from species that are in critical condition such as Bufo baxteri, Peltophryne lemure and (the megacharismatic one...) Atelopus zeteki... 
For a Zoo with a limited holding and breeding space, expecting them to hold and breed a sustainable level of pumilio morphs could potentially rank in the same level as maintaining breeding colonies of Spring Peepers (which has the same IUCN rating as D. (Oophaga) pumilio... (see http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/detai ... 55892/summ). 

If we want those morphs and species to be available for years then we need to be the ones to make the populations sustainable as the Zoos do not have the space to devote to any real numbers of non-critical species.. If you search the ISIS data base (see http://app.isis.org/abstracts/abs.asp ) look to see how many are holding D. pumilio... 


Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I had missed the pumilio part too Aaron. And this gets back to the "rationalization" about saving species not being a "justification". For conservation of wild populations, captive breeding and reintroduction is absolutely the last resort. Protecting, conserving, and/or managing wild populations so that they remain viable for the long term in their natural habitat is always the prefered option. The vast majority of species of amphibians in captive collections are not at the point where they need captive breeding for restoration. What they need is habitat protection and conservation. To my knowledge (which is admittedly limited), even those populations of pumilio threatened by development are not in the dire straights that would justify the last resort, highest risk, option of captive breeding and management. And given the propensity of pumilio to thrive in disturbed habitats, it's fair to say there are other species that are far worse off and more deserving of captive breeding efforts.

However, given that there is a desire to have these pumilio in captive collections, there is real conservation value to managing these captive populations well. The reason is because if captive populations tank, the desire to have these pumilio in captivity will continue and create a market demand for more WC animals to be imported - placing increased pressure on the very species we are claiming to protect. But this second case is not a zoo issue because it doesn't fall within their conservation mission. Zoos are going to place highest priorty on those species that are likely to go extinct without captive breeding efforts and there are already more of those critically imperiled species than the zoos can accomodate. So it is up to us, the private sector, to manage those imports so we don't have to go back to the wild in 10 years to get more. So the challenge is to find people with the other 4/5 of the WC pumilio needed to found a genetically representative founding populations and work together to exchange stock and manage genes. And this type of cooperation should have no negative (but potentially positive) impact on the ability to make a profit from animals produced.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

These points really hit the nail on the head. And hobbyists need to get away from the mind set that we are holding on to the wild frogs last chance of saving them selves. As a community we need to support things that will prevent that from happening in the first place not just focusing on keeping track of our frogs for when it does happen. It is very important to keep good records of our captive frogs for the future generations to view and study in CAPTIVITY and like Brent said so we dont need to keep going bafck and getting more. But if our frogs (hobbyists and zoos) are needed to repopulate wild groups shit has hit the fan and its far to late. And as far as pumilio go at the moment they should be the last thing on an institutions mind to work with compared to other amphibians. 



bbrock said:


> captive breeding and reintroduction is absolutely the last resort. Protecting, conserving, and/or managing wild populations so that they remain viable for the long term in their natural habitat is always the prefered option.





> The vast majority of species of amphibians in captive collections are not at the point where they need captive breeding for restoration. What they need is habitat protection and conservation.





> However, given that there is a desire to have these pumilio in captive collections, there is real conservation value to managing these captive populations well. The reason is because if captive populations tank, the desire to have these pumilio in captivity will continue and create a market demand for more WC animals to be imported - placing increased pressure on the very species we are claiming to protect. So it is up to us, the private sector, to manage those imports so we don't have to go back to the wild in 10 years to get more.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I`ll do whatever I can to save wild populations but we`re working w/ 3rd world countries. Forgive me if I sound distrusting but we can`t even keep our oil companies from continueing to want anwar and yellowstone and places that were supposed to be set aside years ago. 
I live in a swamp and they don`t even have any of my land delineated wetlands. I could`ve come in and leveled this area, slashed and burned it all. Destroying prime habitat for bluespots/jeffersons, slimies, wood frogs, leopards, bulls, greens, peepers, greys etc. I`ll work forever to try and save habitat but the truth is it will always be in peril as long as we`re around. Species that are not of concern today will be tomorrow.
My point being breeders need to be able to get w/c stock to keep our breeding programs sound now that we have TWI and ASN.
I see the problems of w/c as pets and I see the problem of farmed animals being shut down from import. I just don`t think we, as amphibian stewards should be left out.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Jumping back a few posts, I think the FRs have to be taken on a case by case basis on their differences from WCs and their influences on wild populations. As it was put to me recently the FR label often has more to do with the laws in place for exportation than the actual breeding of the frog (meaning that in some cases the animals are fresh WC, and in others they are truely CB in their country of origin but as long as they fit the country's idea of FR they all get tossed under the same label).

This debate seems to be taking a bit of a turn in relation to "justifying" WCs... justifying why the individual may buy a known WC animal, and why WCs are still exported/imported in the first place. A local's justification for capturing a native species and tossing it in a container to be shipped off to wherever may have a lot to do with lack of money in a money driven world (we don't just need to set aside land for frogs, we need to teach the locals how to survive in the money driven world and not destroy their locale environment in the process and give them the money and time to do so). At the other end of the line, a buyer may just want that... cute frog pet wise, breeder or a popular selling pet business wise, etc. If it's not available CB, they will take advatage of what is available WC. Those thinking more for the future may want some animals not related to what they already have as an added justification.

I don't think the buying WC to contribute to the genetic diversity in a captive population is a BS excuse if the keepers involved are able to breed the animals and actually due it... like with ASN.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Is it reasonable to expect frog-sellers to know the qualifications for Farm-Raised in the country of export? And the conditions under which the frogs they are selling were procured/produced?

Could ASN validate a frog 'farm'? A seal of approval might go a long way in helping folks understand the differences.


-Afemoralis


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

KeroKero said:


> I don't think the buying WC to contribute to the genetic diversity in a captive population is a BS excuse if the keepers involved are able to breed the animals and actually due it... like with ASN.


This is a very valid point however there are not a lot of frogs that we would need to worry about CURRENTLY....
One that comes to mind is the yellow morph Fantasticus which has been line bred for 3 or 4 years now, I'm not sure if those in the NW have introduced new blood but these animals are certainly in need of a little genetic diversity as all that i know of came from one trio originally. My guess some of the specialty thumbs (standard Lamasi possibly) in 3 to 4 years would also need in influx of new genetics if we don't see some come out of the farm raised project in Peru in the next year or 2.
So much of what we have currently is so new genetics do not come into question however thinking of things like Regina Tincs, how long has it been since they have been out bred to a new gene pool?
I think good genetic diversity is very important to the future of our hobby and unfortunatley it takes 100 animals to get the genetics of 20 out into the population if not even more in some instances.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Afemoralis said:


> Could ASN validate a frog 'farm'? A seal of approval might go a long way in helping folks understand the differences.
> 
> 
> -Afemoralis


Not ASN, but TWI. Marcos led a workshop at the last IAD about this very subject with the idea of pulling together stakeholders to develop some sort of certification standard that would work similar to Certified Sustainable Timber. The reality is that the folks involved in program development at TWI already have their hands full. A few people have expressed an interest in moving the certification program forward but that is about as far as it has gotten.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

KeroKero said:


> I don't think the buying WC to contribute to the genetic diversity in a captive population is a BS excuse if the keepers involved are able to breed the animals and actually due it... like with ASN.


Well..... I kind of do think it is BS. If we are just maintaining captive populations of wild type animals for the hobby, then we don't need to be as rigorous about capturing genetic diversity and integrity as we do for animals intended for reintroduction. We just need animals that look and act like wild animals but this can be done with only a subset of the genetic diversity found in the wild.

Also, bringing in wc animals to bolster genetics of captive populations within ASN my be more myth than fact. The variabilis TMP recomends keeping the two existing captive populations separate despite the fact that both captive populations most likely originated from the same wild locality. The reason for this is because genetic integrity is determined by both genetic diversity AND relative frequency. A population with high genetic integrity will contain all of the genetic alleles found in the ancestral wild population, and these alleles will be in about the same proportions as found in the wild - rare alleles, still rare; and common alleles, still common. So even though the Linbo population likely carries a subset of alleles from the INIBICO population, we have no information about the number of founders, sibling pairings or other breeding history, etc. So we have to assume that even if the line is "pure", the frequency of alleles has been reordered. Given that the INIBICO population has already been imported in more than sufficient numbers to start a new "clean" captive population, it was decided to concentrate management on the INIBICO animals. The point being that under ASN recommendations, the INIBICO animals are not used to infuse existing blood lines with genetic diversity. Rather, they are used to begin a new captive population with better documentation of their breeding history.

I think it is important that ASN concentrate on recommending the best management for the animals available in captivity. In the variabilis case, the INIBICO/Understory animals are already here and it would be irresponsible not to utilize them to found a captive population with the highest possible genetic integrity. But I doubt you'll ever see a management recommendation from ASN that calls for capturing more WC animals to add genetic diversity to a captive population. The only time I would see that happening would be to found a captive population explicitly for wild reintroductions and founding such populations is not likely to fall under ASN's role for some time to come.

The bottom line is that I wouldn't use ASN as an excuse to justify importing WC animals, but if you do purchase WC animals, please enroll the animals in ASN so you can more easily coordinate with other people working with the common goal of sustaining that population in captivity.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

I must point out that the term 'farm raised' has a different meaning at every 'farm' and in every country. Lack of genetic diversity in founding stock for many, many of these 'farms' is not a problem. Quite the opposite. Many 'FRs' are WCs. Lack of inspection and regulation of 'farms' seem to be huge issues in many countries.
No matter how well the frogs were imported, quarantined, treated or not, what really makes a difference once the frogs (WC CB or FR) are in this country is in whoe's hands they end up.
Being part of a legal WC import/purchase can be a help to a number of Dart species we have here. There are a great number a species with less than 20 (or even 10) founders here. Some species are not surviving in the hobby. There can be benefits to both the hobby and wild, as stated already. If done right.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Being part of a legal WC import/purchase can be a help to a number of Dart species we have here. There are a great number a species with less than 20 (or even 10) founders here. Some species are not surviving in the hobby. There can be benefits to both the hobby and wild, as stated already. If done right.
> 
> Rich


I agree completely with what you are saying Rich. But how many captive populations are lost due to lack of genetic diversity? I would guess zero. The problems with losing captive populations are more due to not understanding the husbandry, or not enough breeders who can provide the husbandry, needed to grow the population and sustain it. Genetically, we could probably supply the hobby demands for a captive population with the decendents of a single breeding pair if the husbandry and coordination among hobbyists were sufficient. I'm not saying this would be ideal. I'm just saying that lack of genetic diversity to sustain captive populations is WAY down on the list of reasons why some populations don't make it. 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking wild imports when done correctly. I've already stated where I think imports can help wild frogs. And certainly adding genetic diversity to existing populations could certainly "benefit" our desires as hobbyists. But let's not confuse benefiting our hobby with benefit wild frog conservation. And as I said before, rarely do imports of less than 20 individuals from a wild population arrive. If there are 20 or more individuals being imported, why not use them to found a new (known genetics) population instead of folding them into an existing popuation that we've already lost track of with regards to pedigree and genetics?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Being part of a legal WC import/purchase can be a help to a number of Dart species we have here. There are a great number a species with less than 20 (or even 10) founders here. Some species are not surviving in the hobby. There can be benefits to both the hobby and wild, as stated already. If done right.
> ...


Yup, pretty much agree. The issue in most cases comes down to husbandry. But new blood is needed here for some species or the species will dies out in our hobby. A small percentage, but true.
On thing that rarely comes up is the number of frogs that are imported in bad conditions that survive but were damaged to the point where they will NEVER breed enough to sustain their line. Even though they look fine after a few months of 'fattening up'.

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Yup, pretty much agree. The issue in most cases comes down to husbandry. But new blood is needed here for some species or the species will dies out in our hobby. A small percentage, but true.
> 
> Rich


True enough in theory, but I sure can't think of a single example where any captive amphibian population has gone into decline due to inbreeding depression. There is a lot of debate over the role of inbreeding and genetic diversity even among conservation scientists.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, pretty much agree. The issue in most cases comes down to husbandry. But new blood is needed here for some species or the species will dies out in our hobby. A small percentage, but true.
> ...


How about the species with one or two males or females total in the U.S.?

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> . But new blood is needed here for some species or the species will dies out in our hobby. A small percentage, but true.
> On thing that rarely comes up is the number of frogs that are imported in bad conditions that survive but were damaged to the point where they will NEVER breed enough to sustain their line. Even though they look fine after a few months of 'fattening up'.
> 
> Rich


Even in mammals and birds, populations have been managed with very few founders successfully (look at Przewalski's Horse.. it only had 15 founders in 1900 and about 30 descendents in 1945... and is now up to over 1500... or Micronesian Kingfishers (captive population is descended from 29 birds..) .. 

It just has to be tracked and done correctly... 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > . But new blood is needed here for some species or the species will dies out in our hobby. A small percentage, but true.
> ...


How about the species with one or two males or females total in the U.S.? 

Rich


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ ... azelle.cfm 



and I would suggest people review this article with respect to small population numbers... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 07.03433.x

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

In addition to Ed's comments, the real concern with genetic bottlenecks from inbreeding is that when those animals are released back in the wild, they MAY (and I emphasize MAY) have a smaller genetic toolbox to work with to respond to varying conditions faced in the wild. But if there is no potential for using the captive population for reintroductions, then this isn't really a worry and for hobbyists who just want nice wild type frogs in our homes, we can get along just fine with only a small percentage of the full genetic variability in the wild. Sure, it's always nice to have a full compliment of wild genes in captive populations, but it isn't a necessity for their sustainability. I could go into a story of how wolves exploit inbreeding to their adaptive advantage but I won't inflict that misery on anyone today.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

and for a better example.... golden hamsters aka teddy bear hamsters in the pet trade are all derived from one female... 

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Hamster

Ed


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

Brent and Ed so are you saying that even with all the inbreeding and small amount of genes floating around with frogs like standard lamasi ect..... they will be able to continue on for years to come to produce healthy frogs that will in turn produce good froglets and so on for hobbyists to come? Because I agree with you that we really dont need to worry about a lot of things like containing captive populations that carry the full spectrum of genes for any given population and species in the hobby. If you really believe that a small # of frogs will be able to carry the hobby on its shoulders.


But I also understand what Rich is saying with wanting captive frogs that can be tracked and traced back to groups containing the full spectrum of genetic variability. That is one of the beautiful things about this hobby is that we have the tools and people who want to take things to that level and it really separates us from a lot of other herp hobbyists. But at what cost of the frogs to get more specimens? There just is not the out lets at this time to get more of these frogs lacking new blood. Its a shame there were not more programs to allow so many individuals of any given frog to be able to start with a decent manged group that could be tracked and breed so that it would never have to be exported agian. And with all the pumilio and peru stuff coming in the ASN could not have come at a better time. And getting all these new frogs in the system will be a benefit for the hobby for years to come.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Let me be a bit more specific with my question. 
What happens when we have a single remaining (in the U.S. hobby) female Dart that was brought in legally and is nowhere near as fecundate as a breeding machine like a hamster? I don't think I am going out on a limb when I say new blood is needed in those such cases. By 'needed' I mean to say that while it may be possible to produce enough offspring to keep a very small population going for an uncertain length of time, I know of not a single respected breeder who would not be overjoyed and breath a HUGE breath of relief if the number of single female 'x' went from one to more than one.
As stated, in most (all if done right) cases the import does absolutely nothing negative to the wild populations. Almost like moving a couple dozen rats out of the alley.


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

It seems to me that Ed and Brent are discussing what is possible, while you are discussing what is desirable. Certainly, no one would disagree that having more than one individual of a particular sex would be great for a number of reasons.
But if only one is available, you could still build up a successful breeding program if managed properly. It would take longer, but it still could be done. It's a good thing that darts have fairly long lives. I think if we want to buy more time while we figure things out, then one way we can all contribute is to work at longevity of animals in our care.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Rich Frye said:


> As stated, in most (all if done right) cases the import does absolutely nothing negative to the wild populations. Almost like moving a couple dozen rats out of the alley.


I think this is a largely untested hypothesis. I believe it comes from the data on amphibian populations showing large fluctuations even in the absence of targeted collection/predation.

While it's not true for Dendrobatids, most amphibians are collected from breeding aggregations. And breeding aggregations are very susceptible to over-harvest (as in fishes). Those very same population fluctuations mean that what is 'sustainable' one year is disasterous the next. And it also brings in the idea of Allee effects- where a population that has dropped beneath a certain level is no longer stable, and declines to extinction (as in Passenger Pigeons).

And we do observe it in amphibians- over collection for the terrarium hobby (and maybe food market) has and does wipe out breeding populations. 

Maybe 'if done right' collection won't have a negative effect. But 'done right' isn't currently the norm, or even have much of an economic incentive at this point. And we don't have any standard to judge what 'done right' is- especially on the buyer end of the problem. Until we do, I don't think ANY WC amphibians should be regarded as a responsible purchase.

-Afemoralis


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Let me be a bit more specific with my question.
> What happens when we have a single remaining (in the U.S. hobby) female Dart that was brought in legally and is nowhere near as fecundate as a breeding machine like a hamster? I don't think I am going out on a limb when I say new blood is needed in those such cases. By 'needed' I mean to say that while it may be possible to produce enough offspring to keep a very small population going for an uncertain length of time, I know of not a single respected breeder who would not be overjoyed and breath a HUGE breath of relief if the number of single female 'x' went from one to more than one.


I'm going to split a hair here, but it is an important hair to split. When you get down to a single, not very fecund female, your problem is not necessarily genetics, the problem is an inability to produce enough offspring to offset the inevitiable mortality of that one female. If you had 20 genetic clones of that female, you would likely be in very good shape for sustaining a captive population. The reason this is an important distinction is because there is a difference between genetic diversity and reproductive capacity. High genetic diversity does not mean an animal will have high reproductive capacity and a low genetic diversity does not mean it will have low reproductive capacity. So we need to understand if our problem is really capacity, or genetics.

The second part about breeders not being happy with descendents from a single offspring is really more of a value judgement in the hobby. Here's my take on it. In a perfect world, all of our captive populations would be established with enough founders to capture the majority of alleles found in the wild population. And they would be bred to maintain the relative frequencies of those alleles. That is the ASN objective and is behind management recommendations for various captive populations. These ideal populations are equivalent to captive populations bred for reintroduction so they meet the highest possible standard of "need". 

However, we all know that we aren't in a perfect world and many of our captive populations descend from a few individuals, have been selectively bred (not always intentionally), and have had allele frequencies skewed through sibling pairings, etc. Okay, so it isn't the perfect world so now we need to decide what the actual harm is. For the most part, these populations have only a subset of the alleles found in the wild, and the frequency of those alleles is different from wild animals because of various degrees of inbreeding. But to all of us, they still look and act like wild animals and we can't tell them apart from wild ancestors so we should be happy. Sure, it's a bummer that they don't have the fully variety of forms found in the wild, and they certainly couldn't be used for reintroductions, but the question is whether this limitations really warrant re-importation of animals from the wild. I think those have to be judged on a case-by-case basis but usually, I would say no. For example, g&b auratus are probably some of the most genetically turdified frogs in the hobby. But I really can't see how having fresh imports from Panama in my living room would add any value over my nice little mongrels that I currently have.

But then there are things like the Peruvian imports where we have a high level of confidence that animals are being exported sustainably and humanely, AND money is being used for wild habitat conservation. That has afforded us the luxury to have our perfect world scenario without the guilt. Is it justified? Maybe. But at least it seems acceptable. Now the result may be that these new imports simply replace existing captive populations. I think the TMG struggled with this with the variabilis because the management recomendations could very well result in the Linbo population fading away and being replaced by the INIBICO population. I don't have a problem with that since we aren't really losing anything in the hobby. We still have variabilis representative of that locality. 

I think the bottom line is that we need to understand the goals for our keeping these animals. And then make decisions about management and importations that weigh the costs and benefits relative to those goals. If we can sustain a population of pumilio that is genetically equivalent to the wild population, then hallelujah. But if we can only capture 10% of those genes, is it really worth exploiting wild populations to get the other 90%?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Afemoralis said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > As stated, in most (all if done right) cases the import does absolutely nothing negative to the wild populations. Almost like moving a couple dozen rats out of the alley.
> ...


It is a fairly accepted hypothesis that small collections from many, many wild pumilio (and other) populations have less effect on a wild population that the rats in the alley analogy. 'Done right' would include collections of Darts which would have zero effect on wild founding populations. There are such collections.
Now, the way that many, many of the WC Darts coming into the hobby is not what most here would call 'done right' , but that does not need to be the case. 

Rich


----------



## Devin Edmonds (Mar 2, 2004)

> As stated, in most (all if done right) cases the import does absolutely nothing negative to the wild populations.


But it's not "done right". There are CITES export quotas for CITES listed species, that's about it. Few of the amphibians that are collected and exported en masse are monitored or managed at all. This is a problem.

edit: point has been made previously, someone beat me to it.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be a bit more specific with my question.
> ...


Agreed.
I think my questions may have come off as 'genetic' when they were more real life/situation/husbandry issues. We need none of the species we work with. But when the ones we do have here reach the point where we are down to exactly one, it scares me. I want at the very least to keep what species we have in our hobby.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Devin Edmonds said:


> > As stated, in most (all if done right) cases the import does absolutely nothing negative to the wild populations.
> 
> 
> But it's not "done right". There are CITES export quotas for CITES listed species, that's about it. Few of the amphibians that are collected and exported en masse are monitored or managed at all. This is a problem.
> ...



Could you please cite known examples of Dart species effected by the current imports?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Agreed.
> I think my questions may have come off as 'genetic' when they were more real life/situation/husbandry issues. We need none of the species we work with. But when the ones we do have here reach the point where we are down to exactly one, it scares me. I want at the very least to keep what species we have in our hobby.


And the ASN management category 2 is designed specifically for this case. From the ASN Handbook: 

_Category 2 – Priority Captive Management. Existing captive populations believed to be at risk of being lost are actively managed to meet targets set forth for each population. For most Category 2 populations, the target objective is to establish or re-establish sustainable captive populations to restore them to Category 1 status._

In other words, "Yikes! If we don't do something, we are going to lose these babies from the hobby!"


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Could you please cite known examples of Dart species effected by the current imports?


I'll let Devin respond to whether Mantella are being affected at the species level. But for the most part, I think you have to go to the population level. You could completely wipe out several morphs of pumilio and still not have a significant impact on pumilio in general. I think Mark, Jason, Evan, and others could all recount examples of local populations and their habitat being nuked by collectors.

Which brings up another issue. So far we have only talked about legal collection. What about illegal? Do commercial smugglers tend to leave more, or less, destruction than legal collections? One thing we can say is that even crappy legal collections are at least monitored at some level and potentially regulated. I'm not saying it is done well, but at least they are not completely off the record.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please cite known examples of Dart species effected by the current imports?
> ...



I was refering to legal collection. You are saying that legal collections are 'nuking' populations and habitat?

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> I was refering to legal collection. You are saying that legal collections are 'nuking' populations and habitat?
> 
> Rich


The ones I've heard about were not legal. But regulation can only control the situation for legal exports. Better enforcement is needed to control illegal exports. The hobby creates the demand for both and I don't think the natural resources give a rip one way or the other whether they are killed by smugglers or bad collectors working within the law. I've heard the "justifications" listed earlier in this thread used to justify both legal, and illegal imports. It's all tied together.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please cite known examples of Dart species effected by the current imports?
> ...





> think for the most part the BIGGEST problem with them is habitat loss. All exportaion of mantellas could be put to an end tomorrow and they would still be in BIG trouble. If they had a better future in Madagascar I would say that exporting them would be much more of an issue and would scare me more. But I could be wrong on all this.
> 
> 
> I think it depends on the smuggler and the legal collecters. Sorry to say but there may be in many instances smugglers that have less of an effect on a species then the guys doing it legaly. Depending on the species being taken and the #s collected.


----------



## Devin Edmonds (Mar 2, 2004)

> Could you please cite known examples of Dart species effected by the current imports?


My comment was about commercial collection of amphibians for the pet trade in general, not specifically about dart frogs. But that being said, I can't cite an example of a dart frog negatively affected by legal collection, and in part that's what I was getting at - that the populations where heavy collection of amphibains occur are not monitored or managed for the most part, and that's a problem.

an example though of where heavy commercial collection (within CITES quotas too I might add) has harmed a population of popular frogs is Mantella cowani. The world conservation union estimates its populations have declined in upwards of 80% over the last 15 years as a result of habitat destruction AND collection of frogs for the pet trade (see the global amphibian assessment's report on Madagascar amphibians or globalamphibians.org) 



> think for the most part the BIGGEST problem with them is habitat loss


Definitely, and this can be said for nearly all amphibians. To generalize, commercial collection is dwarfed when compared to the problems created by habitat loss/land use change and emerging infectious disease (i.e. chytrid). That being said, collection is another pressure on the frogs we're most passionate about, and one that we, as hobbyists, are directly responsible for. When all these problems pile up on amphibians, that's when extinctions occur, and we can take some of the weight off of certain species by not fueling the demand for wild frogs.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*GREASER* said:


> I think it depends on the smuggler and the legal collecters. Sorry to say but there may be in many instances smugglers that have less of an effect on a species then the guys doing it legaly. Depending on the species being taken and the #s collected.


Exactly, I think it is fair to say that a tourist nabbing a few animals for their own use will likely not have any significant impact on a wild population unless that population is down to its last few individuals to begin with. I still think it is wrong, because it is unregulated and unmonitored. But I was thinking more about commercial smuggling operations. What is disturbing to me is that I've actually heard people overtly "justify" smuggling because "the habitat was going to be destroyed anyway". That sort of blanket statement is really dangerous.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Devin Edmonds said:


> That being said, collection is another pressure on the frogs we're most passionate about, and one that we, as hobbyists, are directly responsible for. When all these problems pile up on amphibians, that's when extinctions occur, and we can take some of the weight off of certain species by not fueling the demand for wild frogs.


I think Devin hit a key point here. We can sit back and blame alot of things for amphibian decline (most of which have greater influence on decline than collection), but, as hobbyists, collection is the pressure that we are directly responsible for, which also means that it is the one pressure that we can directly influence by our own actions.

Whether legally collected or smuggled, both problems belong to us - the hobbyists.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Do you know how many institutions I supply frogs to. Since abg, houston zoo, seaworld in austin, yale peabody museum, buffalo zoo, clyde peelings reptileland and numerous other institutions, research facilities, universities, etc. have all got their frogs from me and other for profit breeders....
> What makes a person or institution "worthy" of getting new breeding stock or bloodlines?


I'm not understanding the logic here. So, because you sell them frogs, they should return the favor? Do you expect the same of hobbyists that you provide frogs to?



frogfarm said:


> Myself and a few other well established breeders(for profit) happily provide the majority of animals for these non profit facilities but we are not able to obtain animals from these same facilities.
> What if they were the only ones who could obtain new genetic diversity?


So, if a few for-profit breeders are providing these institutions the _majority_ of their animals, how would getting animals from these same institutions increase the genetic diversity of your breeding groups?


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

bbrock said:


> *GREASER* said:
> 
> 
> > I think it depends on the smuggler and the legal collecters. Sorry to say but there may be in many instances smugglers that have less of an effect on a species then the guys doing it legaly. Depending on the species being taken and the #s collected.
> ...



That is why I wish they would allow an limited # of personal NOT commercial export permits for wild frogs. So if you personally want to get off your couch and visit the areas of the world these frogs are from track them down and manage to catch some. You would be granted the opportunity to take a couple pairs from the field. I cant imagine the number of people visiting most of these locations would do damage. Or they could issue so many permits a year for any given population. After for instance let say 25 permits for any given pair were handed out they would not be offered again till the next year. Hell the gov could make a lot of $ off the high price they could charge for the collecting permits.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*GREASER* said:


> That is why I wish they would allow an limited # of personal NOT commercial export permits for wild frogs. So if you personally want to get off your couch and visit the areas of the world these frogs are from track them down and manage to catch some. You would be granted the opportunity to take a couple pairs from the field. I cant imagine the number of people visiting most of these locations would do damage. Or they could issue so many permits a year for any given population. After for instance let say 25 permits for any given pair were handed out they would not be offered again till the next year. Hell the gov could make a lot of $ off the high price they could charge for the collecting permits.


Yep, I think this has been discussed on Frognet, possibly here on DB, and certainly within TWI that there could be potentially for a nice environmentally friendly cottage industry here. I'd love to see an economist to get involved in TWI who could provide some solid analysis on this sort of idea. The nice thing too is that real money could go straight into the hands of locals so instead of getting maybe 5 bucks apiece for 50 frogs, they get $200 bucks apiece for 10 frogs. Lot's of details and red tape to swim through. But the concept is appealing.

And I agree completely with Donn. The market demand is the issue we own and can do something about.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> frogfarm wrote:
> 
> Do you know how many institutions I supply frogs to. Since abg, houston zoo, seaworld in austin, yale peabody museum, buffalo zoo, clyde peelings reptileland and numerous other institutions, research facilities, universities, etc. have all got their frogs from me and other for profit breeders....
> What makes a person or institution "worthy" of getting new breeding stock or bloodlines?
> ...


Yes, I expect the same courtesy and respect I give them. If they buy terribiilis from me and have locale specific red eyed tree frogs or glass frogs or atelopus(not covered by a no release to the public clause) I should be able to buy animals back from them for breeding purposes only. I was referring to the statement which left private breeders out from acquiring w/c animals. Of all the animals Ive purchased their #`s have been increased 100 to 1000 fold in this hobby. As have a LOT of other breeders. Could you imagine what prices would be and what would be available if there were no breeders? How much would they take from the wild then? I just want credit where credit is due. How long does someone have to be in the hobby and what do they have to accomplish to get the credit they deserve?
And yes I have given frogs back to the original importers/hobbyists when I was one of the first breeding them when I heard he lost his stock to disease(mint terribilis and galacts). I have also donated or given discounts to all the institutions I have supplied.



> frogfarm wrote:
> Myself and a few other well established breeders(for profit) happily provide the majority of animals for these non profit facilities but we are not able to obtain animals from these same facilities.
> What if they were the only ones who could obtain new genetic diversity?
> 
> ...


By acquiring animals not abundant in the hobby. I have donated/sold animals which didn`t make it more than a year or 2 at times and I have got rid of animals that certain institutions still have and I would`nt mind breeding again because their #`s fell in the hobby. The zoos have to realize they may not be the best at breeding certain animals or a certain employee screws up and if something happens to their stock they should have a backup. I think it should run both ways. These aren`t lions and tigers and crocs we`re working w/.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> > By acquiring animals not abundant in the hobby. I have donated/sold animals which didn`t make it more than a year or 2 at times and I have got rid of animals that certain institutions still have and I would`nt mind breeding again because their #`s fell in the hobby. The zoos have to realize they may not be the best at breeding certain animals or a certain employee screws up and if something happens to their stock they should have a backup. I think it should run both ways. These aren`t lions and tigers and crocs we`re working w/.



For sure. It would be great if TWI could come up with registered froggers who could work with zoos to be able to intorduce frogs back into our hands. For many reasons. One being that they should liek you mentioned have a backup and zoos are natoriously cramped for space and dont all ways have the room to have back ups and give all the species they would like to work with enough room. Ron did this from frogs and passed them around. It shoudl bne done like that again. Are any of you familiar when he did that like a year ago?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I don't want to say too much because a lot still needs to be hashed out. But I can say with confidence that the amphibian conservation community is fully aware that the private sector quite frequently is better than zoos at working out husbandry and breeding practices for amphibians. There is a real desire to take advantage of that strength for conservation breeding programs. It is just a matter of working out details. And the idea of two-way exchanges between zoos and ASN stewards is very plausible.

There is no doubt that establishing mutually beneficial relationships with mutual respect between private individuals and zoos is difficult. At a minimum, personalities are involved and by stroke of bad luck, it could just be that the contacts on the zoo side are just not very cooperative types. More likely, the zoo staff are simply limited in what they are allowed to do, or the relationships they can establish. Forging such relationships could require that the private individual work their way up the chain of command, where they will likely meet more resistance the higher they go. It has been done. But alot depends on the beauracracy of that particular zoo. However, if someone were to approach a zoo as a representative of an organization like TWI - a fellow ISIS member, then the relationship is more of a professional relationship between colleagues. I don't think there is any question that zoos realize potential benefits of working with the private sector. I think it is just a matter of finding the right institutional organization that allows the zoos to mesh with the private sector legally, professionally, and ethically.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Yes, I expect the same courtesy and respect I give them. If they buy terribiilis from me and have locale specific red eyed tree frogs or glass frogs or atelopus(not covered by a no release to the public clause) I should be able to buy animals back from them for breeding purposes only. I was referring to the statement which left private breeders out from acquiring w/c animals. Of all the animals Ive purchased their #`s have been increased 100 to 1000 fold in this hobby. As have a LOT of other breeders. Could you imagine what prices would be and what would be available if there were no breeders? How much would they take from the wild then? I just want credit where credit is due. How long does someone have to be in the hobby and what do they have to accomplish to get the credit they deserve?.


So lets change this up some... lets substitute a name instead of Zoo/Aquarium... so if you sold frogs to a person (lets use the name Bill) and Bill had some frogs that you decided you wanted would you feel that you had the right to expect that he would sell or give them to you just because you sold some frogs to him? 
If you then went onto a forum like this and complained that Bill bought X frog from you, but wouldn't sell/give you Y frogs how do you think this would be percieved? 

Why is this perception different? Why does conducting a transaction suddenly entitle you to feel that you have been slighted? 




frogfarm said:


> Myself and a few other well established breeders(for profit) happily provide the majority of animals for these non profit facilities but we are not able to obtain animals from these same facilities.
> What if they were the only ones who could obtain new genetic diversity? .


Then the frogs would potentially be lost to the hobby because the hobby failed to correctly manage them. Why would this be the fault of any institution simply because the could potentially bring in new bloodlines (often because the countries of origin DO NOT SEE THEM DOING THIS TO SELL THEM FOR PROFIT!! This is a big reason why Zoos can often aquire animals... )? 




frogfarm said:


> By acquiring animals not abundant in the hobby. I have donated/sold animals which didn`t make it more than a year or 2 at times and I have got rid of animals that certain institutions still have and I would`nt mind breeding again because their #`s fell in the hobby. .


So the Zoos are discriminating against the hobby because we failed to maintain the animals? 



frogfarm said:


> The zoos have to realize they may not be the best at breeding certain animals or a certain employee screws up and if something happens to their stock they should have a backup. I think it should run both ways. These aren`t lions and tigers and crocs we`re working w/.


Actually the Zoos do realize that they may not be the best at breeding certain things which is why they often don't bother breeding them because they can get them from the hobby however, if we fail to maintain the populations, don't look to the Zoos to bail you out because we screwed it up.... Zoos are concentrating on more critically endangered species and have thier priorities set. If it came down to no dendrobatids being available to the Zoos from the private sector, then it would be likely that they would bring in a couple of species that are easy to breed and exhibit (think auratus and tincts) and would simply manage them for exhibit purposes (rear as needed to replace lost adults or fill needed exhibit space)... 

Think back to my example with Bill above... if you think you can plausibly make the same arguement of entitlement regarding any individual and have a claim on thier frogs or thier ability to aquire frogs simply because you sold or gave them frogs..... 

When you make the comment that they are not lions or tigers etc, well, the rules governing this do not make the distinction and even more importantly to the Zoos, when a animal rights group starts a media blitz about a zoo selling/giving animals to the pet trade to be sold for profit, they simply list numbers and don't bother with species... and it looks bad for the Zoos... 

Until we the hobby through the use of things like ASN show that we can responsibly manage populations.. don't expect to much difference in treatment from the Zoo.... 

Some comments... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> So lets change this up some... lets substitute a name instead of Zoo/Aquarium... so if you sold frogs to a person (lets use the name Bill) and Bill had some frogs that you decided you wanted would you feel that you had the right to expect that he would sell or give them to you just because you sold some frogs to him?
> If you then went onto a forum like this and complained that Bill bought X frog from you, but wouldn't sell/give you Y frogs how do you think this would be percieved?
> 
> Why is this perception different? Why does conducting a transaction suddenly entitle you to feel that you have been slighted?


Yes, I would expect them to sell me some of the offspring, when available and if I gave them a discount I`d expect a discount in return.
I have complained, not on a forum, but to other hobbyists when I find out that people get animals I was in line for from breeders and they got on the list after me but seem to get the animals before me. I think that getting treated the way you treat others is respectful in a business relationship or any other.
more later.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It`s not conducting a transaction that makes me feel slighted, it`s the idea that the relationship is not reciprocal. I had someone want an animal from me and i asked if they had any x frog to trade. they said they were saving them to sell at IAD(WHERE HE WAS SUPPPOSED TO PICK UP THE ANIMAL) oOPS. so I had to sell him the animal and use the same money to buy frog x at IAD. When it happens w/ a person it`s because they don`t want me breeding the same animals that they are breeding. That`s a bad business relationship and I`ll treat it accordingly. Completely different reason that I can`t get frogs from a zoo. I treat that accordingly, I still donate and give discounts. I understand the resons but it stinks when your doing different than jobbers, wholesalers etc. but still get lumped in w/ them.




> Then the frogs would potentially be lost to the hobby because the hobby failed to correctly manage them. Why would this be the fault of any institution simply because the could potentially bring in new bloodlines (often because the countries of origin DO NOT SEE THEM DOING THIS TO SELL THEM FOR PROFIT!! This is a big reason why Zoos can often aquire animals... )?


First off, I was saying that IF a zoo had a breeding line donated by you say tom horn line imitators and you accidently left the lid ajar and lost your only pair and couldn`t get any back from them, not doing a special import or giving up breeder animals, well it stinks.

O.k. what`s so bad about making a profit of breeding animals? Do you have a collection you`ve maintained w/out a vacation for 10+ years? 
So, if you have animals lost to the hobby and won`t release any it`s our fault but if you can`t maintain you can just get some imported?
Displaying animals to the public and replacing when needed from wherever they can be got until their gone? So someone displaying animals and making a profit from displaying them is o.k. but selling offspring from maintaining(keeping) and breeding them is wrong. Am I supposed to give them away? :lol: Everyone who works at a zoo makes a living, although meager, i myself am not driving a porsches or even a car made after the mid 90`s.




> frogfarm wrote:
> By acquiring animals not abundant in the hobby. I have donated/sold animals which didn`t make it more than a year or 2 at times and I have got rid of animals that certain institutions still have and I would`nt mind breeding again because their #`s fell in the hobby. .
> 
> 
> So the Zoos are discriminating against the hobby because we failed to maintain the animals?


No, that means shit happens and we should be each others backup.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> When it happens w/ a person it`s because they don`t want me breeding the same animals that they are breeding. That`s a bad business relationship and I`ll treat it accordingly. Completely different reason that I can`t get frogs from a zoo. I treat that accordingly, I still donate and give discounts. I understand the resons but it stinks when your doing different than jobbers, wholesalers etc. but still get lumped in w/ them.


Not you specifically Aaron but point out to me where the hobby AS A WHOLE has acted in a different manner than those sorts of companies? 
The Zoos have dealt with the hobby in the past.. how else do you think people have NAIB line azureus (as one example).. what do you think were the factors that changed that relationship? What is this hobby doing to overcome those issues??? 



frogfarm said:


> First off, I was saying that IF a zoo had a breeding line donated by you say tom horn line imitators and you accidently left the lid ajar and lost your only pair and couldn`t get any back from them, not doing a special import or giving up breeder animals, well it stinks.



So what happened in the hobby that you ended up with the only pair left in the private sector? Why weren't they maintained in the hobby as a whole in a responsible manner? 
If I purchased the imitators from you and you then left the lid off and lost all of yours am I obligated to sell or give you the ones I bought back? Am I obligated to sell or give you offspring? At what point? What if I had promised the first 10/25/50 animals to other people? Am I then obligated to break my word to them? Does the type of frog change the obligation? If you had sold me several granuliferous and I left the lid off the cage and they escaped and died, are you then obligated to give or sell me more of them (even though I have shown I was irresponsible?)? 
At what point do you draw the line? If I sell you a car and you crash it into a tree do I have to sell you my other car because you crashed the first one? How is this different? 

I understand that it would be nice to be able to have a reciprical workings with an institution in this manner but I still don't see where the sense that they are obligated comes from (see above comment on the car) when the error lies in the hobby.... 



frogfarm said:


> O.k. what`s so bad about making a profit of breeding animals? .


If you are a private person or a company breeding animals for profit nothing.. 
If you are a Zoo or other conservation organization that is working with animals on loan etc from other countries .. a lot.. There are the negative public perception problems, the accusations from the countries of origin about stealing money from them or that you have looted from them.... the refusal of other countries to let you come into thier country and work with the animals or aquire animals for conservation work.... I can continue if necessary....... 



frogfarm said:


> So, if you have animals lost to the hobby and won`t release any it`s our fault but if you can`t maintain you can just get some imported?.


There is a difference here... the Zoos are not trying to maintain the frogs due to space issues.. As I pointed out above, if they became totally unavailable to the Zoos then some MAY be imported probably from another Zoo (highest probability Europe or Russia or from a Zoo in Costa Rica etc but very unlikely they would be collected unless there was an agreement with the country of origin which would in all probability preclude thier ever being released to the pet trade) and a small colony or two would be set up to supply sufficient numbers for exhibit. But this would be thier last choice, there would be a significant risk that they would not be exhibited anymore and a nice graphic would be created discussing why they don't have them any more.... 




frogfarm said:


> Displaying animals to the public and replacing when needed from wherever they can be got until their gone? So someone displaying animals and making a profit from displaying them is o.k. but selling offspring from maintaining(keeping) and breeding them is wrong. ?.


As for display yes.... If a zoo was unable to get dart frogs to display would they close? No... they would use something else probably a species that they are working with like A. zeteki or Bufo baxteri... or one of the native locals that the new AZA directive has them working with.... Lets make something clear here... I do not think that there is one Zoo in this country that is operating in the "black" on its gate attendance alone (all need some level of grants, donations or govermental support in some manner to make it from year to year and often do so on a shoe string budget) so making a profit by displaying an animal particuarly a frog is a laugh.... 


See my comments above. There are restrictions on Zoos that you do not have... 



frogfarm said:


> Am I supposed to give them away?


Some of the AZA regs preclude sales even to other Zoos.. so if you want to follow in thier footsteps... yes.. 



frogfarm said:


> Everyone who works at a zoo makes a living, although meager, i myself am not driving a porsches or even a car made after the mid 90`s.


So lets look at the average annual salary of a ZooKeeper..... if you look at http://www.davidsonccc.edu/academics/as-zoo.htm and scroll down the page... lets see... 18,000-24,000 a year and Zoos typically now want a 4 year degree in bio or other animal related science and two years experience.... So in today's market how far does that go...... 




frogfarm said:


> No, that means shit happens and we should be each others backup.


And what has the hobby done in responsibly managing thier animals that shows that this should be the case? 

Why have we been importing auratus for over 20 years? What happened to Tricolors? What is currently going on with all of the different morphs of tincts? How are we showing that we are responsible? 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed , 
I wonder if you would describe the prosses a zoo ( as a whole, not just your's) goes through from thought of housing a Dart to actually having that animal on display. I think we will see a great difference between what we do in the hobby and what zoos go through to display an animal. And the goals are most often totally different.

Aaron, 
I am with you 100% on the reciprocity end of our business and if you show me a frogger who has not had an accident or two I will show you a newbie. Buy or get something donated from me and refuse to sell or trade with me down the line. Wait and see how many of my frogs come your way in the future. I feel an obligation. Here is something I started doing years ago. I call it my 'fire insurance '. I have number of friends and established breeders who I have given some of my 'tougher to find/raise/whatever' frogs. Given. If and when I find myself in need due to an accident, emergency, or whatever those frogs are mine again. Until that happens someone is working with my frogs for free. 


I think we would all be hard pressed to point out a zoo that is taking this hobby to the level many hobbyists are in a positive way. We have our smugglers true (some that even work with/through zoos) . The vast majority of zoos are doing the pretty fish tank , destroying eggs, and planning what to use the now occupied tank for once the Darts have died off. I hope this changes.
I bring up the above because we are lumping and using terms like 'AS A WHOLE'.
If a zoo has no monetary incentive to keep Darts they most certainly are not overly concerned with breeding them. And many of the husbandry issues that go along with that goal are not pursued. If Aaron and I are not successful with our breeding projects we go hungry and homeless. And are no longer able to donate our 'lines' or advise to zoos, universities, museums, or classrooms.

Rich


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> frogfarm wrote:
> First off, I was saying that IF a zoo had a breeding line donated by you say tom horn line imitators and you accidently left the lid ajar and lost your only pair and couldn`t get any back from them, not doing a special import or giving up breeder animals, well it stinks.
> 
> 
> ...


O.K. obligated or expecting is a bit extreme wording and you keep pushing this farther than it is. A few offspring isn`t much to ask. I`m not talking about doing special imports or asking to be put on a list above others. If they are being managed in the hobby and 10/25/50 are sold before produced I have no need to get them back. You know what I`m trying to say Ed. You can`t compare the hobby and zoos since they don`t have a working relationship. I have this kind of working relationship w/ some breeders.
See you know this is hard because we`re not managed and also somewhat in competition w/ others to make enough to take care of our frogs and get more stuff and also turn a profit. Zoos operating in the black are still managed and can get grants. If we don`t do well us and our frogs are out on the street, but we still manage to form bonds and come together for the greater good. We can`t all be Bill  . It`s hard to manage stuff when everyone needs to be diverse to stay in business. This also answers the question below about giving animals away.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> frogfarm wrote:
> Displaying animals to the public and replacing when needed from wherever they can be got until their gone? So someone displaying animals and making a profit from displaying them is o.k. but selling offspring from maintaining(keeping) and breeding them is wrong. ?.
> 
> 
> As for display yes.... If a zoo was unable to get dart frogs to display would they close? No... they would use something else probably a species that they are working with like A. zeteki or Bufo baxteri... or one of the native locals that the new AZA directive has them working with.... Lets make something clear here... I do not think that there is one Zoo in this country that is operating in the "black" on its gate attendance alone (all need some level of grants, donations or govermental support in some manner to make it from year to year and often do so on a shoe string budget) so making a profit by displaying an animal particuarly a frog is a laugh....


Some of your wages are made/paid from people walking thru the door correct? I was making about the same as a person walking thru the door per auratus months back. I have to pay for heat, elec, I burn downed wood from the property, half my mortgage is the animals space, I have cricket bills, ff`s/media,substrate, cooling, travel to shows advertising etc.etc. If you saw my wages after expenses you wouldn`t think I was turning a profit by zookeepers standards then.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Ed ,
> I wonder if you would describe the prosses a zoo ( as a whole, not just your's) goes through from thought of housing a Dart to actually having that animal on display. I think we will see a great difference between what we do in the hobby and what zoos go through to display an animal. And the goals are most often totally different.


The process has multiple layers that vary depending on how many people are involved in the process and how whether or not there are PMP or SSP considerations.

In the simplest scenario... An number of species are selected using the following criteria,
conservation value, educational value (and more recently availability which I will elaborate on in a minute) and whether or not the enclosure or housing is suitable for the animal. 
The animal or animals are then evaluated to see if they meet those criteria (and the decision can vary based on origin of the animals (for example, AZA recommends not breeding or holding any azureus except for those registered in the SSP). If they do not meet the criteria then the process starts over again. Once the animal or animals have be evaluated and meet those criteria then it has to be presented to a committee whose size varies depending on the Zoo (for example at our Zoo, it consists at a minimum of the Curators, the Vets, the Animal Collections Manager, the Nutritionist, the Conservation Director and the Pathologist..) The recommendation for the enclosure is reviewed and discussed. The Committee has to approve the recommendation.. for example if the animal would cause an increase in the cost of feeding then it may be disapproved, if it requires hard to aquire foods then it can be disapproved.... Typically there needs to be a strong case made to add wc to a collection to overcome the need to aquire wild caught animals. 
It has to be available from an AZA Zoo or an AZA approved source (meaning that unless you have dealt with a Zoo in the last few years, you may have to go through an inspection or recommendation process (this still in the implemetation process so not all Zoos are compliant yet.. but many of the bigger ones are especially those in the Eastern Portion of the Country). 
If it is not available or not approved, the process starts again. 

The animal once located and aquired may have to wait until quarantine space opens up (this can be as short as a couple of days to months later). Once it is quarantine it has to pass quarantine before it can be transfered to the main collection (this typically requires at a minimum of 30 days or three clean fecals (and clean fecals maybe required before the animal could be shipped (varies from Zoo to Zoo) which can depending on the length of time to clear take months (we have had several snakes in quarantine for over 16 months...) 

Once cleared of quarantine, it typically is transferred to the main collection where it could be placed into an already established enclosure or held off exhibit while the enclosure is developed or finished. 

That is not the uncommon scenario required to add an animal to the collection (in the case of dangerous animals like venomous snakes add all of the issues with aquiring the antivenom to the process before the animal can be aquired). 



Rich Frye said:


> Aaron,
> I am with you 100% on the reciprocity end of our business and if you show me a frogger who has not had an accident or two I will show you a newbie. Buy or get something donated from me and refuse to sell or trade with me down the line. Wait and see how many of my frogs come your way in the future. I feel an obligation..


This is the unspoken assumption from the cameraderie within the hobby.. this is different than the statement made earlier.. 



frogfarm said:


> "Yes, I expect the same courtesy and respect I give them. If they buy terribiilis from me and have locale specific red eyed tree frogs or glass frogs or atelopus(not covered by a no release to the public clause) I should be able to buy animals back from them for breeding purposes only.





frogfarm said:


> I just want credit where credit is due. How long does someone have to be in the hobby and what do they have to accomplish to get the credit they deserve?


This is a strong statement of expectation that simply because an institution has purchased from them they automatically are obligated (the person has an expectation that they should be entitled to this transaction..)... 




Rich Frye said:


> Here is something I started doing years ago. I call it my 'fire insurance '. I have number of friends and established breeders who I have given some of my 'tougher to find/raise/whatever' frogs. Given. If and when I find myself in need due to an accident, emergency, or whatever those frogs are mine again. Until that happens someone is working with my frogs for free.


This is in effect a breeding loan where you have an understanding from the person who has the frogs. This is different than selling someone frogs and automatically assuming that that person has to provide you frogs in return.... 




Rich Frye said:


> I think we would all be hard pressed to point out a zoo that is taking this hobby to the level many hobbyists are in a positive way.


In what ways has the hobby shown that they are working in a positive way? I think this is a very premature statement.... especially given the recent history of the hobby. 




Rich Frye said:


> We have our smugglers true (some that even work with/through zoos) .


So who is working through the Zoos to smuggle frogs? I would like to hear who the accused are and on what evidence. 



Rich Frye said:


> The vast majority of zoos are doing the pretty fish tank , destroying eggs, and planning what to use the now occupied tank for once the Darts have died off.


Not totally accurate as given that these frogs can live for 10-20 years there isn't any need to jump to replace the frogs and there is a Zoo PMP for Azureus so they will pretty much always be available at some level. Its hard to have a PMP and just be doing the "pretty fish tank"... and I have yet to see a much proof that the majority of the hobby is not simply doing the same thing as the vast majority are not doing anything to ensure the longterm surviviorship of the frogs. So Rich what are you doing to ensure the long term surivorship of the frogs in the hobby? History has demonstrated that simply breeding and selling the frogs isn't enough (look at what has happened to E. tricolor/anthoyni as a good example...). 





Rich Frye said:


> If a zoo has no monetary incentive to keep Darts they most certainly are not overly concerned with breeding them. And many of the husbandry issues that go along with that goal are not pursued.


Really? So the only way someone or an institution can have an incentive to keeping and breeding an animal is for it to be finacial? If that is the case then why are so many of the critically endangered species that are being held in Zoos and being bred the brown ugly ones... (like Wyoming toads, PR crested toads, the Eleuthrodactylus from the El Cope rescue...) while the hobby is concentrating mainly on the pretty colorful ones... Odd.. it seems like the hobby is concentrating on those by which it can make a buck and those that are not getting top dollar are being ignored by the massess (like the many tinct morphs...)... So this is responsible husbandry on the part of the hobby? 
So the overlapping husbandry issues (like the vast majority of nutritional issues (which is one area where the hobby and private sector do little if any research)) have no value? 



Rich Frye said:


> If Aaron and I are not successful with our breeding projects we go hungry and homeless. And are no longer able to donate our 'lines' or advise to zoos, universities, museums, or classrooms.
> Rich


So the Zoos don't provide any info to the hobby?? 

And oddly enough a lot of those frogs were ones that were held originally by the Zoos and as it was discovered that more people were interested in them than the brown unloved things... the Zoos moved onto the animals that were being ignored and let go extinct..... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> O.K. obligated or expecting is a bit extreme wording and you keep pushing this farther than it is. .


I don't think I am pushing it out too far Aaron.. you made some strong statements with the comment on the terriblis and how they should provide you with the option to aquire frogs from them (refer to your comment about locality specific RETFs... (I quoted it above in my response to Rich..) 




frogfarm said:


> You can`t compare the hobby and zoos since they don`t have a working relationship. .


But Zoos have had this relationship in the past and no longer do so (hence the origin of the NAIB azureus... some of the tricolor/anthoyni...) and that relationship is no longer there... so what happened to it? What is the majority of the hobby doing to change this issue? Why aren't more people joining TWI? (some notable commentators in this thread are not listed as members...) 



frogfarm said:


> See you know this is hard because we`re not managed and also somewhat in competition w/ others to make enough to take care of our frogs and get more stuff and also turn a profit. Zoos operating in the black are still managed and can get grants..


But this can be exactly the problem.. How difficult would it be for everyone in the hobby to make a commitment to one or two morphs/species of dart frog and keep them for the long time (through the boom and busts.. just toss eggs when you can't move offspring)? For example there are 2764 registered users on this forum alone. If all of them chose one or two for the long term they could still go with the flavor of the month and you breeders could still diversify and show responsibility for the long-term while being able to stay on top of the popularity wave to make a profit... 

Many Zoos do not operate in the black at this time (since 9/11 there have been less people going to Zoos and many are getting close to closing)... there have been multiple layoffs at a number of Zoos.... Look at what happened to Baltimore and Detroit for an example. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Some of your wages are made/paid from people walking thru the door correct? I was making about the same as a person walking thru the door per auratus months back. I have to pay for heat, elec, I burn downed wood from the property, half my mortgage is the animals space, I have cricket bills, ff`s/media,substrate, cooling, travel to shows advertising etc.etc. If you saw my wages after expenses you wouldn`t think I was turning a profit by zookeepers standards then.


And Zoos have to pay for all of those items as well... as do the keepers....


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

What happened to Baltimore and Detroit if I may ask?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

see http://www.citypaper.com/printStory.asp?id=8636 for the Baltimore Zoo (now known as the Maryland Zoo.. ) it closed it reptile house, cut its staff and reduced its total collection. 

As for the Detroit Zoo. The city ended its support of the Zoo and ordered it to close down (see http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/7293608/detail.html ) however it got permission to try and go private and has remained open but (at least when I last checked) with reduced hours/staffing and cutting back on the projects it is working on. They lost a lot of very experienced staff due to this issue... 

see http://starbulletin.com/2003/02/09/news/story4.html for more background... on the trend. this is not uncommon and it can take a zoo decades to get past the issue (Philly was cut from the city budget in the 1980s.. and only a couple of years ago had to lay off a significant number of staff and restructure operations..... 

Ed


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Thanks for all the info Ed.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed, 
Who decides that the enclosure or housing is suitable as a mixed species tank and how does that work into education and conservation (not conservation of valuable space at the zoo) ? What is average zoo policy on mixing species? The up side to the Darts? 
My 'fire insurance' is not like a breeding loan at all. I expect no froglets or animals back at all unless there is an emergency. They are not my frogs anymore . I brought it up solely as an example of things we can do to make sure all of our Dart eggs are not in one basket. It is quite different than expecting a reciprocal business relationship and does not change my attitude towards those who would blackball selling or trading frogs . 
I put responsibly, healthily housing and breeding what species we have at the top of the 'want' list as being positive. The hobby is way far ahead. One important thing. I am talking about the top third or so breeders versus the top third or so zoos working with Darts at all. How much time a day is set aside for each Dart display at a zoo not involving feeding? 
The smugglers I refer to are not in the U.S. or working with/through our zoos , to my knowledge. I will do some checking and post as much factual info as possible.
I'm not going to go into my full battle plan as to how I plan to save the entire Dart world in a single leap but I do as much posting as I can (as do you Ed) to try to inform. Donate time , frogs (to those I consider using good husbandry practises) and $$$ to conservation.
My input as posted a few years ago. If you find that you have too many 'ugly brown frogs' or 'big ol' tincs' or 'thumbs that are breeding like rats' and can find no takers at the moment, keep those frogs. Raise them to maturity and sell or trade them easily. Sexable or proven adults are and will always be in demand. No matter how 'ugly' they are someone will work with them. 'Ugly' this or 'too big' that will come back around in popularity just as soon as the 'wow' spike for other species moves down.
I would like to point out that I am not a TWI member as of yet because I am not fully informed. I plan on setting more time aside this week to contact members to help understand exactly what TWI is all about.


Rich


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> frogfarm wrote:
> 
> O.K. obligated or expecting is a bit extreme wording and you keep pushing this farther than it is. .
> 
> ...


Yes you are pushing the meaning of my statement too far. I said I should be able to get some other species meaning if they had offspring "available"(if I didn`t say it I assumed I did or it was a given) . Rich owes me some frogs but I`m not asking him for his breeding robalos. I`m finding out what he has available when weather permits. Anyone in the hobby kinda knows there is reciprocity expected. If you sell someone some bri bris and they have some colons coming up soon and you have an ad looking for them they should let you know. If an ad came up from rich next week saying he was selling some colons and I knew he saw my wanted ad and he told me someone already bought them, I`d be pissed. In the hobby that would be blocking someone because you didn`t want other good breeders competing w/ you. 
Your making it look like I`m asking for breeders or animals out of exhibits or something or wanting them to do a special import.
I guess I didn`t add the statement" if offspring are available".


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

> frogfarm wrote:
> See you know this is hard because we`re not managed and also somewhat in competition w/ others to make enough to take care of our frogs and get more stuff and also turn a profit. Zoos operating in the black are still managed and can get grants..
> 
> 
> ...


I don`t know since the "hobby" has no spokesman. I do know what I have accomplished and what some others have acclomplished. I can`t speak for "others" who have had relationships w/ zoos in the past. I can only speak for myself and the rest of the hobby can`t speak for me. 
I also KNOW that there is NO way for any of us to get what`s rare or endangered to help w/ it in the hobby be it black or brown frogs or multi colored outside smuggling and the brown frogs don`t pull in money and we need to make money to keep our frogs (breeders). Kind of a catch 22 there as far as how much we can help w/out guidance. WE as a hobby have been advancing other than a few trolls and bad apple overlaps from the reptile trade in general have made some pretty good advances over the last 10, 5 and 2 years. Info is growing exponentially as the base of experience grows.
How many work toward nutritional problems w/ captives? i don`t think any do from a lab perspective. Do I observe how many offspring do well when switching up vit`s and temps etc. I do what observational science I can.
I have kept breeding pairs that are 10+ years old and lines that are 15-20+ years in the hobby. I can`t give anyone else that dedication. I do know people w/ most of the lines I`ve bred in the past and the narrow bands in the hobby are coming back were traced to me and I got them from chuck and I believe they no longer occur in the wild. there a little black frog still in the hobby because of the frogs we`ve managed in the past. Boulengeri I was never able to get my hands on.
What TWI is doing zoos could have done w/ a mentoring program. All these models are new to me even though I`ve been dealing w/ zoos for 10 years. Not one has ever given me a program or offer or anything along the lines of mentoring in a way to help manage populations. You give me a black or brown frog that needs to be bred in #`s and how to manage it and a little background on habitat and climate and I`ll do whatever you need. The end reason is management, division of labor and a couple hardcore people putting together a mentor program and asn handbook, etc. etc.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Ed,
> Who decides that the enclosure or housing is suitable as a mixed species tank and how does that work into education and conservation (not conservation of valuable space at the zoo) ?


That is dependent on the Zoo. Some Zoos all of those decisions are made by a curator or animal collection manager. Other Zoos incorporate the input of the keepers into the collection management as they work the enclosures and have an idea about any shortcomings. 



Rich Frye said:


> What is average zoo policy on mixing species? ?


I have not heard of an average policy. We do do some mixed species exhbits at work but they take a lot of thought before they are implemented and then we track social groupings as well as interactions. 



Rich Frye said:


> The up side to the Darts? ?


Take this to a different thread Rich. I am willing to discuss mixing in a different thread but it would quickly bog this thread down if tried here. 



Rich Frye said:


> My 'fire insurance' is not like a breeding loan at all. I expect no froglets or animals back at all unless there is an emergency. They are not my frogs anymore .


Except in the case of an emergency or as you stated snip " If and when I find myself in need due to an accident, emergency, or whatever those frogs are mine again. "endsnip. 

That sure sounds like you retain ownership of those frogs. As the people who have the frogs are allowed to breed them even though you do not "claim" any of the offspring or proceed unless there is an emergency does fit the terms of a breeding loan.... 




Rich Frye said:


> I put responsibly, healthily housing and breeding what species we have at the top of the 'want' list as being positive. The hobby is way far ahead. One important thing. I am talking about the top third or so breeders versus the top third or so zoos working with Darts at all.


Define the top third of both groups. Define "heathily housing and breeding". Show me how the hobby is way ahead... Virtually all of the hobby husbandry is the same as that was initially published in Zoos in the 1980s.. (see the following paper by the NAIB Cover, Jack Jr; Wisnieski, Anthony P.; 1989; Captive Maintenance and Propegation of Poison-Dart Frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae) at the National Aquarium in Baltimore which outlines what the husbandry practice today are in the hobby, lighting, misting, sprayers, verticle tanks, false bottoms... or as a a early 1990s... Preece, Donna J.; 2000; The captive management and breeding of poison-dart frogs, family Dendrobatidae, at Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, using a pilot species, American Dendrobatid Group Newsletter 44:3-7 which documents this work starting back in 1994...) Tadpole husbabdry is all pretty much the same as that documented in the early 1990s (see the Amphibian TAG 1995 publication Dendrobatid Larval Rearing Techniques in Captivity Survey Results (published by Henry Doorly Zoo) by D. Callaway... )
So its a little premature to say that the top third people in the hobby are way ahead of the top third Zoos... as the Zoos have been there done that while the hobby is just getting there... 




Rich Frye said:


> How much time a day is set aside for each Dart display at a zoo not involving feeding? .


Why is this important? I don't see any relevance to this question so I would like to hear why before I make a comment on it. 




Rich Frye said:


> The smugglers I refer to are not in the U.S. or working with/through our zoos , to my knowledge. I will do some checking and post as much factual info as possible. .


I am interested regardless.... If it is occuring then its a problem however I suspect that some of this maybe due to how some European countries deal with confiscated animals that are unwated by the Zoos. 



Rich Frye said:


> I'm not going to go into my full battle plan as to how I plan to save the entire Dart world in a single leap but I do as much posting as I can (as do you Ed) to try to inform. Donate time , frogs (to those I consider using good husbandry practises) and $$$ to conservation..


I will go back to a position I have held for a long time (maybe not actively vocalized enough).. dispensing frogs regardless if it is a sale, loan or gift is not enough to show that this will keep frogs in the hobby. The population needs to be maintained. 



Rich Frye said:


> . 'Ugly' this or 'too big' that will come back around in popularity just as soon as the 'wow' spike for other species moves down...


The problem is that each time the spike moves up and down the variation in the genetic diversity goes down. We need to manage the animals in a longer term method in a way that allows these blips to occur without losing genetic diversity or sufficient animals to keep viable. Go back to the idea that we could end up with one frog of one sex of a species or morph, we should be actively working to prevent that from happening. 




Rich Frye said:


> . I would like to point out that I am not a TWI member as of yet because I am not fully informed. I plan on setting more time aside this week to contact members to help understand exactly what TWI is all about.


Joining would be a good thing. 

Ed 


Rich[/quote]


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I guess I didn`t add the statement" if offspring are available".


This would have (at least to me) changed the entire tone of the message. 

But then this brings up the idea of the difference of what is available to the hobby versus the Zoos...

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> > frogfarm wrote:
> > See you know this is hard because we`re not managed and also somewhat in competition w/ others to make enough to take care of our frogs and get more stuff and also turn a profit. Zoos operating in the black are still managed and can get grants..
> >
> >
> ...


And at least one of those persons works at a Zoo... and thinks there needs to be more collaborative work.... 

Aaron, seriously register any and all frogs... its virtually one of the most important things a person can do at this moment. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I think something that gets overlooked when we pat ourselves on the back about how much "the hobby" contributes to maintaining these animals is that nobody can manage a population well on their own. Based on probability of gene inheritance, to establsh and maintain a single captive population that retains the genetic integrity of a wild population, you need to start the captive colony with about 20 unrelated animals and then maintain somewhere between 70-100 animals in subsequent generations. Now I don't know anyone in the hobby who has the ability to start with 20 unrelated specimens of any single species or morph, let alone can devote cage space to maintain 70-100 breeding individuals of F1 and beyond. So even though there are exemplary people in the hobby doing everything they can to sustain these frogs, without organized coordination among hobbyists, we can do very little in the way of truly maintaining the genetic integrity of these animals. But a relatively few hobbyists working together intelligently can very well sustain the numbers needed to preserve genetic integrity.

Zoos coordinate by tying their collections together through ISIS and TWI is doing the same thing. And through ISIS, the hobby may someday be tied together with zoos in what should be a mutually beneficial relationship. But we should expect zoos to place priority and emphasis on the same animals the hobby does. Two different missions and two different purposes.

We need to also remember that when we, as individuals, approach zoos with the expectation of being collaborators, we are initially lumped in with every other member of the public including the ones who dump off their pet iguanas in the zoo parking lot when they got tired of them. We just need to understand to develop a collaborative relationship with a zoo as an individual, we have a LOT of negative experience zoos have with working with the public to overcome. There is a philosophy in life that everyone is an a-hole until they prove otherwise. Sometimes it's really hard proving you aren't an a-hole.


----------



## Afemoralis (Mar 17, 2005)

Whew!

Well that was a constructive and educational conversation- my thanks to all participants.

I'm walking away thinking:

1) We should be working harder to manage the populations that we've got.
2) The new Peruvian FR importations are perhaps the best targets for managing populations with any direct conservation potential (remote as it may be...), and FR frogs w/o specific locality info or w/shady origins aren't any better than WC. 
3) It would be good to get a FR 'certification' going through TWI.
4) It might be worth the time and $$$ to use genetic methods to track down the locality information for hobby lines that have been well managed (Tor's for example).

Any additions?

Cheers,

Afemoralis


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Ed said:


> Rich Frye said:
> 
> 
> > Ed,
> ...


[/quote:1es0jmms]

Ed and/or Brent and/or Whomever,
Is there something in hardcopy or downloadable that I can read explaining in-depth exactly what TWI is all about, how they go about their goals, programs established, the ASN guidelines, ect. When I go to the TWI site I get a very general idea . The ASN guidelines are not available until after one joins. I am in no way yet against joining but I don't put my name to anybody's memberlist until I know exactly what I am getting into. To provide a guideline or full mission statement only after joining seems a bit 'cart before horse-ish'. Any and all info would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Hi Rich,

The ASN handbook and Pocket Guide are available for download by anyone by navigating to the documents page of the ASN web site:
http://www.treewalkers.org/projects/ASN/

Only actual participation as a steward requires TWI membership but we do want people to be able to fully browse what ASN is about before making a decision. Start with the Pocket Guide or else your headache will get worse.

The ASN site is beginning to get a bit crowded because we don't yet have a steward's only site so it is becoming more difficult to quickly find what you need. Hopefully we'll get that remedied soon.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

bbrock said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> The ASN handbook and Pocket Guide are available for download by anyone by navigating to the documents page of the ASN web site:
> http://www.treewalkers.org/projects/ASN/
> ...


Thanks, I thought I had read most of it but may have missed something.
Just curious though why you 'don't want people to be able to fully browse what ASN is about before making a decision'. Again, I am sure I will join but.....

Rich


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rich Frye said:


> Thanks, I thought I had read most of it but may have missed something.
> Just curious though why you 'don't want people to be able to fully browse what ASN is about before making a decision'. Again, I am sure I will join but.....
> 
> Rich


No, I said we *DO* want people to be able to fully browse what ASN is about before deciding.

But we are beginning to put information up there that is going to be of interest only to existing stewards so we need to split up the site into public, and stewards only.


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Sorry Brent, missed that. I thought it sounded a bit strange. Way too much reading today. 
I need to go through the site again . I am having some trouble downloading more info.
Thanks,

Rich


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

woah, this is a heavy post. I could only glance over it briefly.

Referring back to the original question, cheetahs are theorized to have experienced a severe bottleneck at the end of the ice age-- seven individual animals. 

The current Northern elephant seal population is founded from 20 animals.

Albino xenopus laevis I believe are highly in bred. I think axoltyl color forms are too. The trick is to prevent sickly animals from breeding.

[dog breeders comment here] I believe if you want to breed dogs, you must get them tested for hip dysplasia and other ailments, but most breeds are inbred to maintain uniform traits.

Enough said, how do we determine if frogs are suffering from inbreeding depression, when there is a strong possibility that there are husbandry errors? For example, spindly leg syndrome. Some people say that it is caused by heredity. That is possible, but it is more likely there are husbandry errors, specifically when many keepers feed only one type of food and the water quality is poor.


----------

