# Suppliers for Wild Caught frogs?



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

I'm basically trying to find sources for Wild caught Darts. 

I know who to go to for all my Tinctorius and Auratus needs, but I haven't seen anyone/importers dealing in any of the thumbnails.

Doesn't seem to be too hard to find tank raised specimens, but that isn't my first preference. I've contacted Understory, but they are selling all farm raised stuff, which is fine, but again, not my first preference.

SO obviously my question is, is there anyone I can contact about purchasing WC thumbs? (prefer Ranitomeya)


----------



## dam630 (Dec 11, 2009)

Try Simply Natural Dart Frogs
Simply Natural Dart Frogs


----------



## rmelancon (Apr 5, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> ... I've contacted Understory, but they are selling all farm raised stuff, which is fine, but again, not my first preference....


SNDF will not have WC thumbs/Rant. Pumilio and tincs yes.

Out of curiosity why would you prefer WC over farmed?


----------



## laylow (Apr 6, 2009)

Marcus at SNDF is a good guy. Give him a try!!


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

rmelancon said:


> Out of curiosity why would you prefer WC over farmed?



Simply a matter of genetic diversity.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

laylow said:


> Marcus at SNDF is a good guy. Give him a try!!



I'm well aware of what Marcus sells, and I agree, he's a great guy and was a lot of help. In fact I've bought plenty of wild caught Tinctorius from him. 

Unfortunately he does not deal with Ranitomeya, which I specifically mentioned in my post. Otherwise he'd be my first choice.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Simply a matter of genetic diversity.


Why wouldn't you consider farm raised frogs, genetically diverse?


----------



## MPepper (Feb 29, 2004)

The entire range of the genus Ranitomeya is distributed predominately within countries who don't allow the export of wild caught PDF's.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

MPepper said:


> The entire range of the genus Ranitomeya is distributed predominately within countries who don't allow the export of wild caught PDF's.



Well that would certainly put a lid on that then.

I had a suspicion that might be the case, but figured it was worth asking. Farm raised it is then I guess.

As I recall, a previous email I got from you said you'd be shipping again in March right?


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

pl259 said:


> Why wouldn't you consider farm raised frogs, genetically diverse?



I never said they weren't.

I said I wanted WC's for genetic diversity. If 20 breeders are all selling Uakarii or Amazonica's that all originate from a single breeder, it stands to reason I don't have the same diversity in theory as if I had wild stock, had they been legal to import.

While I've seen no actual empirical evidence to suggest that there are issues with inbreeding among darts, it's not a bad practice to just presume that inbreeding can cause issues down the line. I've certainly seen it as a problem with fishes.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

I think Suriname right now is a good example of what happens when a country is "opened-up" to trade in exotic animals (just look under amphibians on Kingsnake.com classifieds right now). Hundreds of unscrupulous exporters rush in and steal every animal they can grab in the rainforest. The "host" countries do not have ecological data that would suggest what are reasonable limits or quotas. Thousands to millions of animals are put through a miserable system and many die in transit or at the facilities of greedy importers.

It's a sad and tragic system and I wonder why anyone would want to support such.

"Man's inhumanity to Man is only surpassed by his cruelty to animals".


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

There is only one guy selling wild caught darts adn they got theirs from Marcus, hence the reason why the prices are so hihg. 
Suriname does have a quota on teh ammount of frogs that are exported, especially darts.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I never said they weren't.
> 
> I said I wanted WC's for genetic diversity. If 20 breeders are all selling Uakarii or Amazonica's that all originate from a single breeder, it stands to reason I don't have the same diversity in theory as if I had wild stock, had they been legal to import.
> 
> While I've seen no actual empirical evidence to suggest that there are issues with inbreeding among darts, it's not a bad practice to just presume that inbreeding can cause issues down the line. I've certainly seen it as a problem with fishes.


It's my understanding that the WC breeding stock, that produces farm raised frogs, consists of more than a single pair and that they're rotated.


----------



## insularexotics (May 3, 2005)

Imperial,
I am wondering if you know that you need more genetic diversity than exists in the country, or if you are just assuming. This is actually something that TWI focusses on in the ASN. If you haven't yet joined, you might check into it. I think we all agree that it would be great for the hobby to reach a point where we no longer needed to import ANY forgs for genetic diversity and the hobby was self-sustaining with genetically viable populations of every species and legitimate morph.



Julio said:


> There is only one guy selling wild caught darts adn they got theirs from Marcus, hence the reason why the prices are so hihg.
> Suriname does have a quota on the amount of frogs that are exported, especially darts.


Julio,
If it is anything like Brazil and fish, quotas can "altered" or "bought" for a price. SO, even though a fish has a quota of 50, there may be 100 or more animals that leave the country because someone gave the right person money to count fewer animals. This is very common in less developed countries and is difficult, if not impossible, to police or halt. The other thing that happens frequently is that someone will smuggle animals into a neighboring country and then export them to developed nations. For instance, fish are frequently sent from Brazil to Peru, and then sent to the US, that would otherwise not be allowed out of Brazil. Sadly, I'm pretty sure some of this happens with frogs too .

Sorry to be a downer!


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

agree, however is not several thoudsands when there is a quota of 500


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

insularexotics said:


> If it is anything like Brazil and fish, quotas can "altered" or "bought" for a price. SO, even though a fish has a quota of 50, there may be 100 or more animals that leave the country because someone gave the right person money to count fewer animals. This is very common in less developed countries and is difficult, if not impossible, to police or halt. The other thing that happens frequently is that someone will smuggle animals into a neighboring country and then export them to developed nations. For instance, fish are frequently sent from Brazil to Peru, and then sent to the US, that would otherwise not be allowed out of Brazil. Sadly, I'm pretty sure some of this happens with frogs too .
> 
> Sorry to be a downer!


Usually not into the USA. For example, Potomotyphlops were being exported from Peru after being shipped over from Brazil. Virtually all of them ended up in Japan and Europe with only a few ending up here in the USA. Its easier to hide fish (or a fish like animal like a aquatic caecilian) in a fish shipment than to hide endemic species of frogs or other herps unless they closely resemble legal species in which case they can be shipped with the legal frogs to hide them... In any case the quotas of these animals are often low that there is more money to be made in the Asiatic or European markets. 
Also due to the issues over frogs like castenoticus, Brazilian endemics are often high on USF&W watch lists. 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Usually not into the USA. For example, Potomotyphlops were being exported from Peru after being shipped over from Brazil. Virtually all of them ended up in Japan and Europe with only a few ending up here in the USA. Its easier to hide fish (or a fish like animal like a aquatic caecilian) in a fish shipment than to hide endemic species of frogs or other herps unless they closely resemble legal species in which case they can be shipped with the legal frogs to hide them...



I know for a fact that a lot of fish end up being shipped from Brazil into Peru or Columbia and then imported into the US to get around Brazilian export laws.

The US doesn't generally block anything unless it is specifically banned or restricted HERE. They don't police the export laws of the countries of origin. 

For example L series catfishes are banned from export of any kind from Brazil, and yet many rare L series catfishes like the Zebra Plecostomus, are routinely smuggled into Columbia, then shipped "legally" to the US.

Zebra Plecos are not endangered or restricted in any way here in the US. 

Columbia lacks any regulations regarding their export. 

quantities of them routinely make their way here. 

Not saying it applies to frogs in any way, but it is one method shippers have been using to end run around the laws of a foreign state.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I know for a fact that a lot of fish end up being shipped from Brazil into Peru or Columbia and then imported into the US to get around Brazilian export laws.
> 
> The US doesn't generally block anything unless it is specifically banned or restricted HERE. They don't police the export laws of the countries of origin. .


If the Agents catch that it is prohibited from export in the country of origin and then there is a real risk of refusal of shipment, or confiscation as they do police it under the Lacey Act. A classic example is Rubber eels (Typhlonectes natans), once USF&W became aware that they were being illegally exported from Columbia as a type of fish, there were confiscations and afterwards refusals of shipments into the country. Some still trickle in with fish shipments but if they are found, the shipment can be refused... 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> If the Agents catch that it is prohibited from export in the country of origin and then there is a real risk of refusal of shipment, or confiscation as they do police it under the Lacey Act. A classic example is Rubber eels (Typhlonectes natans), once USF&W became aware that they were being illegally exported from Columbia as a type of fish, there were confiscations and afterwards refusals of shipments into the country. Some still trickle in with fish shipments but if they are found, the shipment can be refused...
> 
> Ed



ok, if that is the case, then IMO, they aren't very good at catching illegally exported fishes.

I regularly see fairly large quantities of restricted Brazilian wild caught fishes for sale, the same people importing them week after week, month after month.

That kinda tells me something is broken.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> ok, if that is the case, then IMO, they aren't very good at catching illegally exported fishes.
> 
> I regularly see fairly large quantities of restricted Brazilian wild caught fishes for sale, the same people importing them week after week, month after month.
> 
> That kinda tells me something is broken.


The fish are often harder for the agents to identify and it is also easier for them to be hidden in the shipment but if they are caught then yep its going to be financial hit for someone stateside either confiscations, fines, refusal of it to enter the country and/or loss of import permit. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Woodsman said:


> I think Suriname right now is a good example of what happens when a country is "opened-up" to trade in exotic animals (just look under amphibians on Kingsnake.com classifieds right now).


Unlike some other countries which stay open, many of the Latin American countries are only open for a limited period of time and for a limited species of animals. Before opening up again several years ago, the last time Guyana was open was close to 20 years ago. One of the other differences is that some of the countries (like Guyana) are apparently also only allowing collection areas that were not open to collection the last time. 

This at this moment may also be true of Suriname. 

I'm not excusing the handling of animals before, during or after export but there are some small positives in whole mess. 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Woodsman said:


> It's a sad and tragic system and I wonder why anyone would want to support such.



If I might ask then out of curiosity, why are you even in the hobby at all?

Just by keeping frogs you support the very system you are calling sad and tragic.

More interesting is that I read some of your posts in another thread about hybrids which was getting a bit out of hand by about page 5. And I quote you on this:



> Some on this board seem to believe that all of the morphs are clearly-defined animals from a single locality at which no other color morphs exist. The truth is that this isn't the case, that no records have ever been kept on the majority of our frogs (except perhaps, Azureus and "True Sipaliwini"), that we might be doing more harm to the future of these frogs in the hobby by maintaining them in artificially-arranged groups that do not represent their populations in nature. Also, due to the geneticall-restrictive nature of the way PDFs are kept in the hobby, they are not good candidates for any effort at potential future reintroduction efforts.
> 
> Even the most ardent breeder of "purebred" canines understand that if he/she doesn't work to increase the genetic diversity within their breeding program, they will inevitably produce animals that may have multiple health and behavioural abnormailties. *So, by only having one bloodline of morphs such as Giant Orange in the hobby and only breeding sib to sib generation after generation, this will most likely doom the bloodline to extirpation within the hobby (and, clearly, would not be a candidate for a re-introduction project).*


it's clear that at least in the other thread, you understood the need for genetic diversity, the part of your post I highlight in bold above was my very reason for making this thread in the first place. 

So you are opposed to breeding generation after generation of the same stock, siblings to siblings......

Opposed to the greedy importers etc. which I've seen you express rather demonstrative disdain about multiple times.........

Opposed to the idea of someone wanting to increase genetic diversity by integrating WC stock into existing bloodlines.......

Felt it necessary to take a pot shot at me for asking the question in the first place by making the crack quoted at the top of the page.......


My apologies as this isn't intended to be combative towards you, but your replies across the forum seem to be fairly negative against the hobby and those involved in it instead of positive ones.


----------



## satch12 (Mar 22, 2008)

If you guys care about the frogs at all you would never buy a wild caught frog even if it was to create "genetic diversity" there are enough captive breed animals that were once wild caught to create a large amount of genetic diversity, absolutely no need to buy wild caught specimens. I am sorry if I come off as a little harsh I have to admit I'm a little biased I am a ecology/conservation biology student and just got back from the Amazon was fortunate enough to see some wild darts. If you really want to be a responsible frog keeper then you wouldn't even think about wild caught. Even though some sp. of darts aren't part of the IUCN Red list doesn't mean its okay because if enough ignorant people order a wild caught sp. of dart then that sp. may be devastated from the wild very quickly. It is very easy for people down there to choose the easy way to make money even if thats to put species and the environment in danger, like gold mining in Peru for example. Like I said I am not trying to come off as harsh or anything nor am I calling any single person out I am just a dorky biologist trying inform more people and hopefully save a few animals.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Unfortunately Satch, there is a lot wrong with your post, not the least of which is hiding behind a disclaimer saying you aren't calling anyone out, and using that to justify name calling i.e. ignorant, irresponsible etc.

It is not your place to judge who does and doesn't care about their frogs based on what YOU feel is acceptable. Nor is it ignorant to purchase wild caught frogs just because you disagree with it. Likewise it does not imply a lack of responsibility on anyone's part. It's actually kind of funny you say this as just last week a friend of mine said if he died, he wanted to come back as one of my frogs because I go out of my way to give them a perfect habitat, varied regular meals etc. He asserts that I over indulge the frogs.

So to the meat of your comments then, where is your supportive evidence that there are enough captive bred frogs to provide all the genetic diversity required? Do you have studies with numbers to support this? I'll answer this with observations from my area of expertise, aquaculture. 

Since their first importations, both Angelfish and Discus, arguably ,the most well known fish in the aquarium hobby have been imported bt the millions over many decades. Certainly far beyond any numbers of frogs imported. Even today the serious breeders still import wild caught stock to improve failing genetics of inbred and hybridized fishes. successive generation of tank raised specimens are more fragile, smaller sized, and prone to defects. Responsible breeders cull and destroy inferior specimens. The less responsible types will sell anything they can raise to an unsuspecting hobbyist.

In another thread here, someone attacked captive breeding of dart frogs based on lack of locality data and suggested that we are all producing line bred stock, not suitable for re-introduction. Add to that, I'm pretty certain it is safe to state that there are dart frog "breeders" only in it for the money who will, like fish breeders, not be concerned with what they produce, further polluting the issue of genetics.

And while it is your opinion that wild caught is bad, it doesn't mean your opinion is right. Or that mine is. However, based on 20 years experience, I'll say that conservationists can be as bad as "greedy exporters" if not more so to the ecology of the planet and it's animals. Ignorance goes both ways.

When I was in Bolivia, I saw hundreds of slaughtered Hyacinth Macaws, an endangered species, and banned from export. They were slaughtered by farmers, because they are a pest and destroy crops. So while conservationists celebrate their victory in the wild bird import ban, animals in the wild suffer and die that could have been in the care of responsible breeders. Many species of parrots are now extinct in the wild or will soon be not because of greedy importers and ignorant and irresponsible hobbyists, but because of a combination of the arrogance of some so-called conservationist groups and the reality that you can't control everything. 

In Brazil, the government has a dam project on the Rio Xingu. This very small river is a rich and diverse habitat for numerous unique species not found anywhere else. By building a dam there, Brazil condemns thousands of species to extinction. Unfortunately, while conservationists can protest and manage to get bans and restrictions of wild species passed, they can't effect what a government does in the name of economic progress. 

Is it really better for the L series catfishes that live only there to die off in the name of progress than it is for responsible breeders to maintain their species in captivity? Which is truly worse? greedy exporters decimating their populations or the government out right destroying them?

Needless to say we all know about deforestation, burn off and tilling. It's happening pretty much everywhere there is a rainforest and raising awareness might make one feel good, but it doesn't solve the problems. 

So is the frog better off in my terrarium, or is it's interests best served being bulldozed, tilled or burnt off?

Clearly there are pros and cons on both sides. 

Personally I don't like the idea that habitats are being destroyed by progress. And unfortunately it is not our place to dictate to Brazil or any other country what they can or cannot do with their natural resources. They have to decide for themselves what is important. One can only hope they make the right choice before it is too late. At the very least, I know I have well cared for animals that won't be killed by bulldozers. And with efforts like TWI, hopefully a very rich and diverse genetic stock will exist well after governments completely destroy those native habitats, making them unlivable.

I've made several trips to Manaus, and will likely make more in the future. I'm planning a trip to Costa Rica this summer to observe the ornamental reef fish export industry there.

I'm neither ignorant or irresponsible, I'll thank you not to imply so in the future.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

Well said!!!


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

satch12 said:


> If you guys care about the frogs at all you would never buy a wild caught frog even if it was to create "genetic diversity" there are enough captive breed animals that were once wild caught to create a large amount of genetic diversity, absolutely no need to buy wild caught specimens. I am sorry if I come off as a little harsh I have to admit I'm a little biased I am a ecology/conservation biology student and just got back from the Amazon was fortunate enough to see some wild darts. If you really want to be a responsible frog keeper then you wouldn't even think about wild caught. Even though some sp. of darts aren't part of the IUCN Red list doesn't mean its okay because if enough ignorant people order a wild caught sp. of dart then that sp. may be devastated from the wild very quickly. It is very easy for people down there to choose the easy way to make money even if thats to put species and the environment in danger, like gold mining in Peru for example. Like I said I am not trying to come off as harsh or anything nor am I calling any single person out I am just a dorky biologist trying inform more people and hopefully save a few animals.



I hardly know where I stand on captive bred vs wild caught frogs right now. It would be nice if we had no need for wild caught specimens, but I don't know that we actually have enough genetic diversity in captivity as it stands. So, I think some of the comments you made were a little hasty.

Sadly I find my overall knowledge of PDF bloodlines rather inadequate, but I seem to remember something about Tarapoto imitators. I seem to recall that there are only about three genetic lines, Tor Linbo (no locality information on these frogs, however), UE/Sean Stew (as I recall UE received twelve WC specimens in 2007 from SNDF, Sean Stew received some frogs the same year from the same locality, I don't remember how many individuals _exactly_ but I want to say twenty or thirty) and _perhaps_ another line I'm having trouble remembering the name of. Further frustration comes from the fact that because the Tor Linbo line has no locality information and the UE/Sean Stew lines _do_ have locality (and come from the same location) that frog conservationists (ASN) have recommended keeping the Linbo line separate from the UE/Stewart line (in the event that we are actually able to make repopulation attempts the Linbo line would be useless because of its lack of locality, whereas the UE/Stewart lines _do_ have locality. Offspring from a mix of the two lines would also be rendered useless). So, if we keep the Linbo line separate from UE/Stewart we have a founder population of 30 potentially (although not guaranteed) genetically diverse individuals. I'm not a biology major, but it seems to me that the heterozygosity of these animals would drop pretty quickly, even if the frogs were bred and managed for optimum genetic diversity.

I've also heard that there were less than 12 founder stock of all terribilis morphs, most tinc morphs, bicolor, aurotaenia and Ron Gagliardo only brought back as few as 12 pairs of azureus as founder populations. Whether or not these numbers have changed significantly thanks to further importing would require more research on my part....

Fortunately we have the ASN trying to trace the lineages of our frogs back to their original wild caught frogs, but until we have a lot more information about the real genetic diversity in our captive populations, I hardly think that importing wild caught animals could be considered a great sin.

... I probably don't have _all_ my facts 100% straight, but if I said something blatantly misleading I'm sure someone on here who knows more than me will speak up


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

This is HYSTERICAL!!! Good for you!!!! I take it all as a joke, because you couldn't be serious in saying that illegal importers didn't cause wild parrot populations to become imperiled, but species became endangered specifically by the work of conservationists!

HAHAHA!!! Good one!!! Richard.



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Unfortunately Satch, there is a lot wrong with your post, not the least of which is hiding behind a disclaimer saying you aren't calling anyone out, and using that to justify name calling i.e. ignorant, irresponsible etc.
> 
> It is not your place to judge who does and doesn't care about their frogs based on what YOU feel is acceptable. Nor is it ignorant to purchase wild caught frogs just because you disagree with it. Likewise it does not imply a lack of responsibility on anyone's part. It's actually kind of funny you say this as just last week a friend of mine said if he died, he wanted to come back as one of my frogs because I go out of my way to give them a perfect habitat, varied regular meals etc. He asserts that I over indulge the frogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> So to the meat of your comments then, where is your supportive evidence that there are enough captive bred frogs to provide all the genetic diversity required?


Required to do what? There are successful reintroduction/breeding programs with very small starter populations.. for example look at Przewalski's Horse.. in which the total population is decended from 9 animals.. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Since their first importations, both Angelfish and Discus, arguably ,the most well known fish in the aquarium hobby have been imported bt the millions over many decades. Certainly far beyond any numbers of frogs imported. Even today the serious breeders still import wild caught stock to improve failing genetics of inbred and hybridized fishes. successive generation of tank raised specimens are more fragile, smaller sized, and prone to defects. Responsible breeders cull and destroy inferior specimens. The less responsible types will sell anything they can raise to an unsuspecting hobbyist..


This is the result of selective pressures placed on the fish as well as a failure to attempt to truley manage the diversity. This phenomena has been pretty well studied in hatchery raised trout.. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> In another thread here, someone attacked captive breeding of dart frogs based on lack of locality data and suggested that we are all producing line bred stock, not suitable for re-introduction.


And this is actually true. Outside of the AZA studbook managed population of azureus, there are no dendrobatids in captivity that have been/are being managed in a manner suitable for any reintroduction effort much less long-term sustainable captive populations (100 years or more).. This is one of the reasons for ASN.. and If I remember correctly there are currently insufficient animals being registered to meet the needed population base... 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Is it really better for the L series catfishes that live only there to die off in the name of progress than it is for responsible breeders to maintain their species in captivity? Which is truly worse? greedy exporters decimating their populations or the government out right destroying them?


If the captive population isn't maintained with an eye to maintaining the maximal allele frequency for the long term (at least a 100 years if not more) then the argument about bringing them into captivity is a simple sophistry to justify the possession of the animal. In other words, the species is going to be wiped out either way. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> So is the frog better off in my terrarium, or is it's interests best served being bulldozed, tilled or burnt off?.


It depends on that you mean by best interests.. see my comments above this one. In reality sustainably harvested frogs are probably going to be in the best interests of the frogs as this causes the locals to have an interest in preserving the habitat and thus the species... 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Woodsman said:


> This is HYSTERICAL!!! Good for you!!!! I take it all as a joke, because you couldn't be serious in saying that illegal importers didn't cause wild parrot populations to become imperiled, but species became endangered specifically by the work of conservationists!
> 
> HAHAHA!!! Good one!!! Richard.



No, in fact I did not say any such thing. 

Learn to read.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

To answer your question, because I like frogs. And you?




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> If I might ask then out of curiosity, why are you even in the hobby at all?
> 
> Just by keeping frogs you support the very system you are calling sad and tragic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Woodsman said:


> To answer your question, because I like frogs. And you?



I find them a fascinating creature. 

I've been involved in aquaculture for over 20 years, I'm truly surprised it took me this long to get into frogs.

I just asked because after reading some of your posts in other threads, you seem to present a very large amount of disdain for the hobby and people in it.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Required to do what? There are successful reintroduction/breeding programs with very small starter populations.. for example look at Przewalski's Horse.. in which the total population is decended from 9 animals..


Where are you getting that their population is based on 9 individuals? I looked this up, and it states that when the species became extinct in the wild, there were 300 specimens in zoos worldwide, I quote: 

*In 1977, the Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski's horse was established in the Netherlands with the long-term aim of returning this ancient horse to the wild. At that time there were around 300 horses in zoos and parks and their breeding was managed in order to prevent inbreeding.*

Descended from 300 specimens, not 9.

In Florida, the endangered "Florida Panther" has a wild population that is around 50 to 70 pairs last time I checked years ago. Scientists say there isn't enough diversity there to ensure the species survival.

Later in your post, you comment that breeding programs that don't have enough diversity to maintain a population for a century is just "a simple sophistry to justify the possession of the animal". A bit of a contradiction if you are trying to make the point that just 9 animals constitutes sufficient genetic diversity for a species survival.

If I use your criteria, that would make just about everyone on this forum guilty of this. Including the more hardcore "conservationist" types on this forum. 




Ed said:


> This is the result of selective pressures placed on the fish as well as a failure to attempt to truley manage the diversity. This phenomena has been pretty well studied in hatchery raised trout..



And you think frog breeders are going to be any different than fish breeders? I sure haven't seen any evidence of that.

bottom line, most people here are just hobbyists with a love of frogs. Not scientists. While you are correct on the topic in that quote, it doesn't change the fact that the problem exists because of human mistakes and mishandling of those breeding programs. The same human error that will, like it or not, effect captive bred populations of dart frogs. 

And if I might point out, Angelfish and Discus have been imported in probably the millions over the decades, and way more genetic diversity existed from their founder stock than have ever been imported for frogs. Therefore it stands to reason that captive frog breeding is even more likely to suffer problems that Angelfish, Discus or Farm raised trout.

Your point just proves that a need for available genetic material, for preserving diversity by those behaving in a responsible manner, is a necessity. The argument really is about the SOURCE of the genetic material. 




Ed said:


> And this is actually true. Outside of the AZA studbook managed population of azureus, there are no dendrobatids in captivity that have been/are being managed in a manner suitable for any reintroduction effort much less long-term sustainable captive populations (100 years or more).. This is one of the reasons for ASN.. and If I remember correctly there are currently insufficient animals being registered to meet the needed population base...



I quoted that mostly as a dispute of the assertion by the OP that there were already sufficient captive raised stock eliminating the need for WC specimens for any breeding program. Your reply doesn't really dispute what I said in any way. The original quote I copied however was actually hitting on two separate points, genetic material, and locality data, which are really two separate arguments. 




Ed said:


> If the captive population isn't maintained with an eye to maintaining the maximal allele frequency for the long term (at least a 100 years if not more) then the argument about bringing them into captivity is a simple sophistry to justify the possession of the animal. In other words, the species is going to be wiped out either way.



You already state that people are not making real efforts to maintaining a captive population suitable for re-introduction, therefore the current availability of captive bred stock then is largely useless due to "line breeding". You have also proven the need for genetic diversity which we can be reasonably certain we don't have, even without the consideration of other issues like locality data. None of that disputes anything I said, it agrees with it.




Ed said:


> It depends on that you mean by best interests.. see my comments above this one. In reality sustainably harvested frogs are probably going to be in the best interests of the frogs as this causes the locals to have an interest in preserving the habitat and thus the species...
> 
> Ed



And I fully agree with this. Unfortunately there is a lack of sustainably maintained, raised and exported frogs. And if there were more people/businesses like Understory, that would be great. But there isn't. 

Unfortunately with so few farms producing stock like this, we have extremely limited availability and limited selection, which translates into higher prices and demand that exceeds production. 

And none of this even begins to address habitat destruction in the name of progress. Captive Bred vs. WC becomes a rather useless argument if a habitat, and in turn a population is gone while people bicker about it and call names on a forum.

It's easy for people to rant and scream foul at things they don't like. Things are rarely as black and white as those with an agenda like to think it is.

Solutions take work.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Where are you getting that their population is based on 9 individuals? I looked this up, and it states that when the species became extinct in the wild, there were 300 specimens in zoos worldwide, I quote:
> 
> *In 1977, the Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski's horse was established in the Netherlands with the long-term aim of returning this ancient horse to the wild. At that time there were around 300 horses in zoos and parks and their breeding was managed in order to prevent inbreeding.* .
> 
> ...


Actually I did misremember. The entire captive population was/is descended from 13 animals see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (as well as many other resources including 
Equus ferus ssp. przewalskii (Przewalski's Horse, Mongolian Wild Horse, Przewalski's Wild Horse, Takh) ) 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Later in your post, you comment that breeding programs that don't have enough diversity to maintain a population for a century is just "a simple sophistry to justify the possession of the animal". A bit of a contradiction if you are trying to make the point that just 9 animals constitutes sufficient genetic diversity for a species survival.
> 
> If I use your criteria, that would make just about everyone on this forum guilty of this. Including the more hardcore "conservationist" types on this forum.


Actually this is being taken out of context... my response there was directly in response to this statement


Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Is it really better for the L series catfishes that live only there to die off in the name of progress than it is for responsible breeders to maintain their species in captivity? Which is truly worse? greedy exporters decimating their populations or the government out right destroying them?


If the animals that are then brought into captivity are not kept in a manner that allows for maximal allele frequency for the long term then the species is extinct in either case.. Argueing that it is better for the frogs to be in captivity than to be wiped out via habitat destruction is pure sophistry... the only difference is that one is faster than the other. 

The only people guilty of it are those who are sitting around and claiming that they are conserving the frogs or are benefiting the frogs in some way and are not participating in a genetic management plan. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> And you think frog breeders are going to be any different than fish breeders? I sure haven't seen any evidence of that.
> 
> bottom line, most people here are just hobbyists with a love of frogs. Not scientists. While you are correct on the topic in that quote, it doesn't change the fact that the problem exists because of human mistakes and mishandling of those breeding programs. The same human error that will, like it or not, effect captive bred populations of dart frogs. .


One doesn't need to be a scientist to engage in a genetic conservation program. This is what TWI's ASN is all about... and yes they can be like some fish breeders.... for example, many members of the AKA (American Killifish Association) engage in attempting to sustain unique populations in captivity. One of the benefits of ASN, is that they are using the same software as the Zoos to track the populations... so it doesn't have to be at the mercy of mishandling etc... 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> And if I might point out, Angelfish and Discus have been imported in probably the millions over the decades, and way more genetic diversity existed from their founder stock than have ever been imported for frogs. Therefore it stands to reason that captive frog breeding is even more likely to suffer problems that Angelfish, Discus or Farm raised trout.


Actually the analogy is very apt.. as the rapid selection effect on fish reared in mass hatchery methods is extremely rapid (in three generations or less).. and the repeated and vast importations of anglefish, and to a lesser extent discus is exactly the same as the hatchery trout... 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Your point just proves that a need for available genetic material, for preserving diversity by those behaving in a responsible manner, is a necessity. The argument really is about the SOURCE of the genetic material. .


Its not about the source but the management of the currently available allele frequency. The idea is to maximize the frequencies of the alleles to be as close to the natal populations as possible. For the actual description and methods of the process, I refer those interested to the ASN manual. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I quoted that mostly as a dispute of the assertion by the OP that there were already sufficient captive raised stock eliminating the need for WC specimens for any breeding program. Your reply doesn't really dispute what I said in any way. The original quote I copied however was actually hitting on two separate points, genetic material, and locality data, which are really two separate arguments. .


With dendrobatids, allele frequency and locality data are probably equivalent as for most of the dendrobatids commonly held in captivity, there are probably significiant differences in allele frequency based on locality as demonstrated by pattern (much like annual killifish or rainbow darters). If properly managed, there are probably sufficient animals from each population already in captivity that more do not need to be added unless they are not managed and continue to go through popularity cycles resulting in significant declines in population with each cycle which will result in loss of allele frequency, further bottlenecking the population. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> You already state that people are not making real efforts to maintaining a captive population suitable for re-introduction, therefore the current availability of captive bred stock then is largely useless due to "line breeding".


Actually that is not what I said. I said, that the populations are not managed in a manner that allows for them to be used for reintroduction. This is due to a number of reasons. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> You have also proven the need for genetic diversity which we can be reasonably certain we don't have, even without the consideration of other issues like locality data. None of that disputes anything I said, it agrees with it.


Actually I have not proven the need for new imports for genetic diversity, as an indication that was not the case was the reason I referenced the Przewalski's Horse.... I don't think I have supported your case.... 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Actually I did misremember. The entire captive population was/is descended from 13 animals see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (as well as many other resources including
> Equus ferus ssp. przewalskii (Przewalski's Horse, Mongolian Wild Horse, Przewalski's Wild Horse, Takh) )


Although I see you edited out the snarky part of your response, I'm going to respond to it anyway. 

If you want to make your point using a reference like this horse, and expect people to be on the same page with you, then I suggest you might want to have the courtesy to provide a link that contains the material you wish people to see, not just say "look at this animal" and then complain when you don't like the results of a Google search on the subject.

I did "bother" to read the site I quoted. I read the pages I referenced, and it didn't go into in depth details. It was a general overview. Provide the proper reference or don't complain. 




Ed said:


> Actually this is being taken out of context... my response there was directly in response to this statement
> 
> If the animals that are then brought into captivity are not kept in a manner that allows for maximal allele frequency for the long term then the species is extinct in either case.. Argueing that it is better for the frogs to be in captivity than to be wiped out via habitat destruction is pure sophistry... the only difference is that one is faster than the other.
> 
> The only people guilty of it are those who are sitting around and claiming that they are conserving the frogs or are benefiting the frogs in some way and are not participating in a genetic management plan.



Sorry I'm going to disagree with your assertions and say flat out that you are wrong on several points. First off, you have zero empirical data to support any claim that any L series catfishes or any highly specialized fishes that are being imported are not being maintained properly by those that purchase them specifically for breeding purposes.

Your horse story even contradicts your comments about L series catfishes. Your horse for example, which was already extinct in nature, was only saved after the fact by specimens that existed in captivity. Specimens that were not being managed in any way other than for the sake of "having them" in exhibits in zoos. And at that, only 13 specimens apparently were viable candidates, proving that they were extremely poorly mismanaged as a species. And yet you use this as a success story reference for how little genetic diversity was needed to save them. 

And yet you challenge without basis of fact, any interest in saving rare catfishes as being "sophistry" because it doesn't seem to fit your personal beliefs in some way, even though captive populations of L series catfishes stand more of a chance of success for species rescue than your horse story does. 

Rio Xingu is being destroyed. That is a matter of irrefutable fact. It's also very likely that many of the Rio Xingu species will become extinct in the wild long before anyone manages to put together a plan to save them. 

You are trying to imply that there is a selfish intent for sake of ownership in putting forth the idea that it is better to have them in captivity than destroyed by loss of habitat. Well sorry I don't agree, and not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant or wrong. 

The lack of a zoo database doesn't automatically invalidate breeders efforts, regardless of your opinion on the matter, nor does it make such breeders guilty of "sophistry".




Ed said:


> One doesn't need to be a scientist to engage in a genetic conservation program. This is what TWI's ASN is all about...



And one doesn't necessarily have to be part of a sponsored program to be practicing proper maintenance, especially when they have a degree in the field. 

While I'm interested in TWI and it's steward program, they have also admitted to not actually being supported by any governments, or having any real "official" support. In a thread here about TWI, some of the comments there by members actually caused me to wait on joining, when I was ready to pull the trigger on paying for a membership. 




Ed said:


> Actually the analogy is very apt.. as the rapid selection effect on fish reared in mass hatchery methods is extremely rapid (in three generations or less).. and the repeated and vast importations of anglefish, and to a lesser extent discus is exactly the same as the hatchery trout...



I'm sorry, what is it you are trying to imply here? that trout husbandry is even remotely related to Angelfish or Discus? Or are you specifically referring to collection habits? 

Either way, there is no similarity at all between them. Trout are captured for a specific reason, very little care is given to maintaining any specific data regarding collection, or genetic characteristics as they are being harvested and spawned for food. 

Angelfish and Discus tend to come with very specific location data, in many cases right down to exact spots in streams where individual color and patterns are collected.

Breeding is also handled selectively, at least by the more responsible breeders. As with anything, there are people who will produce whatever they can with no regard for anything but the fast buck. 

Of course if you wish to clarify exactly what you meant?




Ed said:


> Actually that is not what I said. I said, that the populations are not managed in a manner that allows for them to be used for reintroduction. This is due to a number of reasons.


How is that not what you said??? My comment was *people are not making real efforts to maintaining a captive population suitable for re-introduction* Explain how these are different? 2 only slightly different wordings of the exact same idea.

populations not managed in a manner is fundamentally identical to saying they are not making a real effort, not managed in a manner that allows them to be used for reintroduction sure sounds like they are not suitable for re-introduction.

It stands to follow that captive populations, which YOU say are not being managed in a suitable manner that would make them a candidate for reintroduction, also implies that they are effectively useless for anything other than the pet hobby.


----------



## 013 (Aug 9, 2006)

Uhm...i think one big question is being overlooked here. Is there any conclusive proof that genetic diversity is really in danger amongst the captive population? Furthermore: do the frogs we keep even suffer from the small genetic pool in the hobby? 

I feel that is simply not the case. Poor quality cb frogs are all due to poor husbandry and not properly selecting the right animals for breeding. 

Frog keepers should be far more dedicated to creating the best possible captive conditions and selecting the best possible frogs for breeding purposes. Weak off spring should not be actively distributed. 

But i guess it's far more easier to demand 'fresh frogs' flown in, than to critically look at the way you keep and breed your frogs. Just my 5 eurocents.


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Although I see you edited out the snarky part of your response, I'm going to respond to it anyway.
> 
> If you want to make your point using a reference like this horse, and expect people to be on the same page with you, then I suggest you might want to have the courtesy to provide a link that contains the material you wish people to see, not just say "look at this animal" and then complain when you don't like the results of a Google search on the subject.
> 
> ...


Wow, someone is a bit irritable today !?! Maybe you should look into Ed's background a bit before you go telling him he's full of S**t.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Everyone is wrong sometimes. Ed even said he misremembered the # from 9 to 13.
The day that people stop questioning people because of who they are is the day.....
I think it`s good to get a viewpoint from a hobby that`s been around much longer than ours and has similar goals.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Although I see you edited out the snarky part of your response, I'm going to respond to it anyway. .


If you want to call it snarky that’s fine.. I had accidently hit the post button instead of preview .. so I had to edit on the board. I had actually cut it out due to length of the total post and being unnecessary to prove my point. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> If you want to make your point using a reference like this horse, and expect people to be on the same page with you, then I suggest you might want to have the courtesy to provide a link that contains the material you wish people to see, not just say "look at this animal" and then complain when you don't like the results of a Google search on the subject. .


Citation of incorrect information (in your case incorrect founder population) doesn’t have anything to do with what I like or dislike as a result.. The failure to correctly check the facts doesn’t reflect on me or my post at all. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I did "bother" to read the site I quoted. I read the pages I referenced, and it didn't go into in depth details. It was a general overview. Provide the proper reference or don't complain. .


I’m not sure how my correcting your failure to get the information correct is complaining on my part. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Sorry I'm going to disagree with your assertions and say flat out that you are wrong on several points. First off, you have zero empirical data to support any claim that any L series catfishes or any highly specialized fishes that are being imported are not being maintained properly by those that purchase them specifically for breeding purposes.


I’ll allow you to divert the conversation from angels and discus which were the main examples I was responding to as you bring them back up below. 
Can you provide proof of any of the management plans that are currently being used to manage the populations? How are they organizing their PMPS or Studbooks? How is the population being tracked for maximal variation in alleles? If you cannot provide that information, then where is your empirical data. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Your horse story even contradicts your comments about L series catfishes. Your horse for example, which was already extinct in nature, was only saved after the fact by specimens that existed in captivity. Specimens that were not being managed in any way other than for the sake of "having them" in exhibits in zoos. And at that, only 13 specimens apparently were viable candidates, proving that they were extremely poorly mismanaged as a species. And yet you use this as a success story reference for how little genetic diversity was needed to save them.


Actually if you had bothered to pay attention to the history of the entire thing it you may have realized it was a very apt analogy. I specifically chose that analogy, as it was during the period when Zoos went from simply holding animals (not managing their alleles) to actively attempting to act as an ark for species in danger of extinction. This is not something that happened in the last ten years… It is an apt analogy as it goes from managing the population with a few animals to a sustainable captive population to being able to reintroduce them into the wild. Overall the hobby is at the beginning of being able to act as an ark but it will take more participation to get it to that point. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> And yet you challenge without basis of fact, any interest in saving rare catfishes as being "sophistry" because it doesn't seem to fit your personal beliefs in some way, even though captive populations of L series catfishes stand more of a chance of success for species rescue than your horse story does.


Doesn’t have anything to do with my personal beliefs but the Science of Conservation…. It is hard to say that a successful reintroduction of a species to the wild that was wiped out down to that few founders can be topped… With respect to your catfish.. I have yet to hear any evidence from you that the population will be managed in a manner that allows for reintroduction much less with long-term maximized allele frequency. Until that evidence is provided then the species as known from the wild population is going to go extinct either way. One extinction will simply be a little slower. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Rio Xingu is being destroyed. That is a matter of irrefutable fact. It's also very likely that many of the Rio Xingu species will become extinct in the wild long before anyone manages to put together a plan to save them.


And simply bringing them into captivity without establishing a program to manage their genetic diversity and natural behaviors dooms them as well. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> You are trying to imply that there is a selfish intent for sake of ownership in putting forth the idea that it is better to have them in captivity than destroyed by loss of habitat. Well sorry I don't agree, and not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant or wrong.


So what other reason is there for rushing out there and gathering them up for sale so people can put them into fish tanks? It isn’t for conservation as there isn’t a plan for their management for the long-term so they can be released…. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> The lack of a zoo database doesn't automatically invalidate breeders efforts, regardless of your opinion on the matter, nor does it make such breeders guilty of "sophistry".


I never said that it did. The availability of a Zoo database that TWI uses means that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel for tracking populations and degree of relatedness that would allow responsible keepers to maximize the genetic diversity of their frogs and hopefully avoid inbreeding problems. 





Imperial_Aquatics said:


> And one doesn't necessarily have to be part of a sponsored program to be practicing proper maintenance, especially when they have a degree in the field.


Whether you have a degree in the field or not is moot if there isn’t any method of tracking the total population and degree of relatedness of that population in addition to not having a plan for the future of that species. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> While I'm interested in TWI and it's steward program, they have also admitted to not actually being supported by any governments, or having any real "official" support. In a thread here about TWI, some of the comments there by members actually caused me to wait on joining, when I was ready to pull the trigger on paying for a membership.


If by official support you mean money from a governmental or other large corporate sponsor then you are correct. Most of those types of donations don’t start to show up until you donate money or show that you have a sufficient base of customers that can be used for advertising. As we have chosen to plow all of that money back into the programs we support and do not accept commercial advertising its unlikely that is going to occur however we are recognized by AARK as well as some state level officials for OFP we do have recognition of being a real organization however justifying TWI really isn’t part of this argument. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I'm sorry, what is it you are trying to imply here? that trout husbandry is even remotely related to Angelfish or Discus? Or are you specifically referring to collection habits?
> Either way, there is no similarity at all between them. Trout are captured for a specific reason, very little care is given to maintaining any specific data regarding collection, or genetic characteristics as they are being harvested and spawned for food.
> Angelfish and Discus tend to come with very specific location data, in many cases right down to exact spots in streams where individual color and patterns are collected.


The short and long term aquaculture effects are well known in sufficient genera to allow for extrapolation to other genera. For example see 
Testing an ecophysiological mechanism of morphological plasticity in pupfish and its relevance to conservation efforts for endangered Devils Hole pupfish -- Lema and Nevitt 209 (18): 3499 -- Journal of Experimental Biology
Maternal care and altered social phenotype in a recently collected stock of Astatotilapia burtoni cichlid fish -- Renn et al., 10.1093/icb/icp085 -- Integrative and Comparative Biology
http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/rodd/publications/BurnsSaravananRodd-09.pdf




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Breeding is also handled selectively, at least by the more responsible breeders. As with anything, there are people who will produce whatever they can with no regard for anything but the fast buck.
> Of course if you wish to clarify exactly what you meant? .


Unless the selective process used by the breeders is to maximize wild traits and allele frequency, then it isn’t any better than those who do anything for a fast buck as it has the same effect on allele frequency as breeders are choosing their pairings on color, body shape and/or fin conformation which directly affects allele frequencies.



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> How is that not what you said??? My comment was *people are not making real efforts to maintaining a captive population suitable for re-introduction* Explain how these are different? 2 only slightly different wordings of the exact same idea.
> 
> . populations not managed in a manner is fundamentally identical to saying they are not making a real effort, not managed in a manner that allows them to be used for reintroduction sure sounds like they are not suitable for re-introduction. .


I never stated that the only problem was due to inbreeding and there are more reasons why the captive populations are not suitable for reintroductions than the inbreeding process. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> It stands to follow that captive populations, which YOU say are not being managed in a suitable manner that would make them a candidate for reintroduction, also implies that they are effectively useless for anything other than the pet hobby.


The facts are the facts.. but it doesn’t render them valueless as the longevity of the animals, means that with a little effort we can have frogs that look and behave like their wild counterparts (or forebearers of the wild population goes extinct) . If we don’t do anything then we can eventually end up with the frog equivalent of a fancy guppy…… 
Ed


----------



## edwardsatc (Feb 17, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Everyone is wrong sometimes. Ed even said he misremembered the # from 9 to 13.
> The day that people stop questioning people because of who they are is the day.....
> I think it`s good to get a viewpoint from a hobby that`s been around much longer than ours and has similar goals.


Hi Aaron,

I wasn't choosing sides or saying Ed is perfect, just saying that when throwing the bullshit flag in a discussion such as this, it might be beneficial to to know whom one is speaking to and what their credentials are


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Everyone is wrong sometimes. Ed even said he misremembered the # from 9 to 13.
> The day that people stop questioning people because of who they are is the day.....
> I think it`s good to get a viewpoint from a hobby that`s been around much longer than ours and has similar goals.


And I prefer people to think about what I write as opposed to simply accepting it based on who I am and what I've been doing... 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

edwardsatc said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I wasn't choosing sides or saying Ed is perfect, just saying that when throwing the bullshit flag in a discussion such as this, it might be beneficial to to know whom one is speaking to and what their credentials are



that goes both ways.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> ok, if that is the case, then IMO, they aren't very good at catching illegally exported fishes.
> 
> I regularly see fairly large quantities of restricted Brazilian wild caught fishes for sale, the same people importing them week after week, month after month.
> 
> That kinda tells me something is broken.


your right, they arent very good at it. maybe you should help them out. the people exporting/importing and selling them are scum. so tell the USf&W about it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

edwardsatc said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I wasn't choosing sides or saying Ed is perfect, just saying that when throwing the bullshit flag in a discussion such as this, it might be beneficial to to know whom one is speaking to and what their credentials are


Regardless of credentials when someone starts trying to claim that bringing something into captivity without a management plan is going to save it as a species then that is as I've pointed out pure sophistry or as some like to say.. BS.. 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Regardless of credentials when someone starts trying to claim that bringing something into captivity without a management plan is going to save it as a species then that is as I've pointed out pure sophistry or as some like to say.. BS..
> 
> Ed


No one claimed that bringing in fish without a management plan would save the species. That's pure BS on your part.

My entire point of view is based on the fact that many species are teetering on the brink, and that their only hope may lie with individuals, not governments. If a habitat faces destruction with zero chance of reprieve like the Rio Xingu, If that means specimens exist without a plan, at least temporarily, then that is what it is. It's far better that those specimens are maintained in captivity and thriving while a plan is put together. Certainly far preferable than dying due to habitat destruction. I see no logical rationale to state they are better off going extinct. At least captivity provides a chance and time to get a program going.

Sorry, but I'll opt for a chance. But that is me. I have a penchant for altruistic deeds.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Ed said:


> Regardless of credentials when someone starts trying to claim that bringing something into captivity without a management plan is going to save it as a species then that is as I've pointed out pure sophistry or as some like to say.. BS..
> 
> Ed


Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could refer me to a study that might help to explain alleles and their impact on populations. I've looked up a few things online, but though maybe you had one that you would recommend.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> No one claimed that bringing in fish without a management plan would save the species. That's pure BS on your part.


Actually you claimed that the fish that reached "responsible breeders" would be saved. When challenged to provide proof that the fish would be managed as a species and not by breeding them for conformation (like purebred dogs) which directly affects allele frequency or by the masses in huge aquaculture tanks (where the effects of large scale aquaculture are known) there was silence on your part. See below for the rest of my comment on this item.... 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> My entire point of view is based on the fact that many species are teetering on the brink, and that their only hope may lie with individuals, not governments.


I can agree in principle with this last sentence. 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> If a habitat faces destruction with zero chance of reprieve like the Rio Xingu, If that means specimens exist without a plan, at least temporarily, then that is what it is. It's far better that those specimens are maintained in captivity and thriving while a plan is put together.


Can you name any population management plans that were in place for any other fish by private individuals other than a couple done by the AKA? Or are you blowing smoke? 




Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Certainly far preferable than dying due to habitat destruction. I see no logical rationale to state they are better off going extinct. At least captivity provides a chance and time to get a program going.
> 
> Sorry, but I'll opt for a chance. But that is me. I have a penchant for altruistic deeds.


I have not once stated that they are better off going extinct, I have stated that they are going to go extinct as a species in either case regardless if they are left in the wild or are brought into captivity unless the captive population is handled in such a way as to prevent 
1) phenotypical adaptation
2) genetic drift. 
Both of these require a PMP and action plan and unlike dendrobatids or mammals, the citations provided in my posts above demonstrate that both of these occur very rapidly in fish (within one to three generations) so with fish, the extinction process effectively starts the moment reproduction in captivity starts... so unless whomever these people are work out a PMP (Population Management Plan) before breeding the fish, they are going to be extinct either way. This is why it is not altruistic nor is it anything but sophistry on anyone's part for claiming that this is conservation... 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jubjub47 said:


> Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could refer me to a study that might help to explain alleles and their impact on populations. I've looked up a few things online, but though maybe you had one that you would recommend.


Hi Tim,

shoot me a e-mail so I can see what your looking for.. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Unless the selective process used by the breeders is to maximize wild traits and allele frequency, then it isn’t any better than those who do anything for a fast buck as it has the same effect on allele frequency as breeders are choosing their pairings on color, body shape and/or fin conformation which directly affects allele frequencies.
Above quoted from ED:

I hate that this reintroduction thing is put on the heads of this hobby.

First off nothing in the hobby is able to be reintroduced strictly from contamination by non native gut flora and fauna.

Second you can`t reintroduce dart frogs into parking lots, hotels etc.
What`s wrong w/ maintaining them for OUR future generations in captivity to see what we`ve lost. I only ever thought of keeping a collection in captivity in the US and elsewhere as they can be maintained no matter what happens in their country of origin.

I`m quite offended that you would think selecting for survival in captivity is no better than making a buck!!!!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Unless the selective process used by the breeders is to maximize wild traits and allele frequency, then it isn’t any better than those who do anything for a fast buck as it has the same effect on allele frequency as breeders are choosing their pairings on color, body shape and/or fin conformation which directly affects allele frequencies.
> Above quoted from ED:
> 
> I hate that this reintroduction thing is put on the heads of this hobby.
> ...


I haven't put it on the heads of the hobby. As I noted several times above, nothing in the hobby is currently acceptable for release. 

As a clairification, its not because of the non-native gut flora and fauna but the potential of disease pathogens like ranaviruses.. there is a risk from non-native parasites but the risks of those are smaller than those of viral pathogens when all is compared. You can clear a frog of most parasites... 




frogfarm said:


> Second you can`t reintroduce dart frogs into parking lots, hotels etc.
> What`s wrong w/ maintaining them for OUR future generations in captivity to see what we`ve lost. I only ever thought of keeping a collection in captivity in the US and elsewhere as they can be maintained no matter what happens in their country of origin.
> 
> I`m quite offended that you would think selecting for survival in captivity is no better than making a buck!!!!


I'm not sure if you are targeting this towards me or not Aaron.. so I will answer it.. 

It depends on what you mean by selecting them to survive in captivity. We are already doing that simply by keeping them.. this is a change in the gene frequency as those that did not adapt to captivity (also called maladaption syndrome) died which means that the offspring are from those that could adapt to the conditions from collection through acclimation. 

Personally I think you can't get away from selecting for survivial in captivity (see above) but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't be attempting to keep a frog that is as close as possible to the population it originated from at the time of collection. Nor are the two incompatiable. Otherwise then all we eventually end up keeping is the frog equivalent of the fancy guppy or the albino parakeet. 
Would the frogs be as interesting to you if they say lost thier parental behaviors? 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, but they`d be as interesting if they were more open and less stressful/sketchy and lost those attributes. Some people will breed "nervous wc pairs and some will breed calmer lines, picking for calmer lines will eventually make for a better cb "line" than another. that`s selecting w/in genetic traits that you`d want in captivity that might not naturally occur.

AS I`ve said, you can be conservation oriented towards saving them in captivity w/out following the rigid outbreeding to maintain the MAXIMUM # of gene frequency. They are going to undergo changes in captivity strictly because it`s a different environment and certain traits may be lost regardless of genetic diversity.
One good point is that people are a problem. Most don`t stay in the hobby more than 2 years. maybe lightening up a little and letting people think they`re doing SOMETHIING for the hobby by not inbreeding and getting SOME wc to experienced breeders from time to time which would definately lighten the load of anyone breeding for "conservation" purposes whatever that may be. I find it hard to believe, that outside ASN we have no chance conserving anything and our efforts are "pure sophistry". 

I think, if people realize that every time they buy offspring off of me and inbreed and lower prices that this directly leads to bottleknecking. If the business side was left to the business and the breeding was left to the breeders then we`d generally have more diversity. If you only bought from people w/ their original breeders for breeding purposes and supplied inbreds possibly for pet stores than we`d get away from this bottleknecking and have enough genetic diversity for a long time. Unfortunately this isn`t the case. The quicker someone inbreeds my offspring and sells a pair 2nd gen inbred and that person cheapens them till a long term goal oriented business can`t afford to keep them anymore, this drives the bottlekneck amazingly quick. I still have red galacts, bicolor and terribilis that have been producing over 10 years, and that`s only because people have been unable to get them to breed. Not to mention the lack of percieved overhead and taxes etc. makes it extremely hard for a long term goal oriented business to do anything in this "hobby" towards conservation.




Ed said:


> I haven't put it on the heads of the hobby. As I noted several times above, nothing in the hobby is currently acceptable for release.
> 
> As a clairification, its not because of the non-native gut flora and fauna but the potential of disease pathogens like ranaviruses.. there is a risk from non-native parasites but the risks of those are smaller than those of viral pathogens when all is compared. You can clear a frog of most parasites...
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> AS I`ve said, you can be conservation oriented towards saving them in captivity w/out following the rigid outbreeding to maintain the MAXIMUM # of gene frequency..



Aaron,

Some of this is coming out of the newer information available on the effects of captive breeding.. 
While this is targeted towards endangered captive populations, the effect is the same because of the effects of captive breeding over time. 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/information/docs/fishreports/hatch.pdf 

The effect of relaxed selection has been shown to occur in captivity with everything that has been tested for it from invertebrates (houseflies) to mammals (old field mice) and does include the effects on fish and birds. 

If the allele frequency isn't maintained then we will lose the frogs as they were.. so unless there is an intent to keep them as close to possible as the wild animals then they will become nothing but pretty frogs... 



Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> I haven't put it on the heads of the hobby. As I noted several times above, nothing in the hobby is currently acceptable for release.
> 
> As a clairification, its not because of the non-native gut flora and fauna but the potential of disease pathogens like ranaviruses.. there is a risk from non-native parasites but the risks of those are smaller than those of viral pathogens when all is compared. You can clear a frog of most parasites...
> 
> ...


Survive in captivity, if I said that meant are more adaptable to captivity and would fare better.

Gut fauna is the only sweeping word I could come up w/ in my limited time to post to generalize about diseases, virus, bacteria, and generally things that could be a big problem which we don`t have tests for yet.

I don`t think I`d classify a true effort to outbreed, though undocumented would compare to a fancy guppy or albino parakeet. I still think that trying, although not up to your standards is above "pure sophistry"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

You may also find this abstract interesting (particularly the last line) 
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Devalue them as much as you want, if they aren`t around where they came from they are much more than "pretty frogs" they`re the only representation we have left cause no one else did a damn thing about it where they came from!!




Ed said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Some of this is coming out of the newer information available on the effects of captive breeding..
> While this is targeted towards endangered captive populations, the effect is the same because of the effects of captive breeding over time.
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Survive in captivity, if I said that meant are more adaptable to captivity and would fare better.
> 
> Gut fauna is the only sweeping word I could come up w/ in my limited time to post to generalize about diseases, virus, bacteria, and generally things that could be a big problem which we don`t have tests for yet.
> 
> I don`t think I`d classify a true effort to outbreed, though undocumented would compare to a fancy guppy or albino parakeet. I still think that trying, although not up to your standards is above "pure sophistry"


Outbreeding would mean that you would be managing the alleles but if you were not tracking parentage to track relatedness (assuming this also is the same as allele frequency) then you are practicing relaxed selection. This has been shown to be a negative for longer term survivial of populations. 

The whole "poor quality" comment that often appears on the board is probably multifocal in origin and relaxed selection is in all probability one of the primary causes (as well as maternal allocations, and phenotypical plasticity, and/or nutrition and genetics). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Devalue them as much as you want, if they aren`t around where they came from they are much more than "pretty frogs" they`re the only representation we have left cause no one else did a damn thing about it where they came from!!


Are you even looking at the references? 

And they won't even be representations if we don't work the populations to manage the wild type animals. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Devalue them as much as you want, if they aren`t around where they came from they are much more than "pretty frogs" they`re the only representation we have left cause no one else did a damn thing about it where they came from!!


Isn't this also essentially the exact arguement for why hybrids are okay? 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

No, they are not direct descendants from the single population thats gone. I don`t understand how you`d gather that.


Ed said:


> Isn't this also essentially the exact arguement for why hybrids are okay?
> 
> Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Oh, I looked at the references. First off, darts use color and poison for their main defense, I think those are fixed. I`ve bred down 7 lines w/ no apparent loss of parenting skills. I don`t think the model is good for all families depending on what traits they use for survival. 
Also you`re looking at more individuals than could be maintained for one morph in the hobby than the diversity we have w/ any morph available. Basically your papers tell me we don`t have a snowball`s chance in hell because of people and lack of genetic diversity, period. I just refuse to give up!

Is that what your looking for me to give up? To accept defeat and say you`re right Ed, why even try? Why don`t I bring up the fact that we don`t even work w/ the populations that are most in jeopardy. That any of these pops can be laid to waste by a dozer before we even know about them?

And please stop citing things about reintroduction as I`m not arguing towards reintroduction. We`ll probably not be looking towards that so why make the criteria so hard. As I said once they hit captivity they start changing and adapting. We`re going to loose the wild genes just by them being in captivity. I don`t need to contemplate something that we have no control over.



Ed said:


> Are you even looking at the references?
> 
> And they won't even be representations if we don't work the populations to manage the wild type animals.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> No, they are not direct descendants from the single population thats gone. I don`t understand how you`d gather that.



Because if we aren't managing them to be as close as possible to the wild type that is gone then what does it matter if they are hybrids or not? If they are just going to be pretty frogs that represent a type of frog that no longer has a place in the wild then what is the value of a morph as opposed to a hybrid? That is the outgrowth of your argument. 

The only value that a frog morph/species has is that it represents a animal as it was from the wild. If we are not going to attempt to manage that aspect of it, then what does it matter? Even though we know from experience and data in multiple taxa, that if it isn't managed it will eventually end up looking like something totally different..and potentially acting like something different....

We already have people discussing that the frogs don't get as big as the wild counterparts.. this is just as readily explained under selection in captivity as nutrition.. (and nutrition probably can be ruled out as multiple animals from multiple different breeders show the same traits..) (either relaxed or deliberate (deliberate would by animals breeding at the earliest possible size due to lack of competition for resources))... It could also be phenotypic plasticity but this is going to directly select alleles for frogs as those whose phenotypic plasticity allows for greatest adaptation to captivity are going to produce more offspring allowing for that trait to be fixed. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Oh, I looked at the references. First off, darts use color and poison for their main defense, I think those are fixed. I`ve bred down 7 lines w/ no apparent loss of parenting skills. I don`t think the model is good for all families depending on what traits they use for survival. .


Can you explain your defense in response to the plasticity of different color patterns and toxicity levels in pumilio when we know that those are not fixed in a large section of thier range? 

Nothing in your response refutes the effects of relaxed selection as the breeder is directly selecting to fix the phenotype. However over generations (In some species as little as one but virtually always by the tenth) morphological differences begin to crop up (how often did you take a pair of calipers to a large group and check them?) In some species egg production is directly affected both in frequency of reproduction, number of offspring and/or egg size.... 




frogfarm said:


> Also you`re looking at more individuals than could be maintained for one morph in the hobby than the diversity we have w/ any morph available. Basically your papers tell me we don`t have a snowball`s chance in hell because of people and lack of genetic diversity, period. I just refuse to give up! .


Actually it doesn't. Depending on how the population is managed is dependent on the frequency of alleles in the founders. At a worst case scenario populations could be probably maintained for at least 50 years based on what we know now with the populations we have now since we are not going to be releasing them. 



frogfarm said:


> Is that what your looking for me to give up? To accept defeat and say you`re right Ed, why even try? Why don`t I bring up the fact that we don`t even work w/ the populations that are most in jeopardy. That any of these pops can be laid to waste by a dozer before we even know about them?


Which populations are those Aaron? How many of those specific morphs/species are in captive hands? Should we toss the morphs/species we currently have in captivity out the window because they currently aren't as endangered? No where have I indicated that we should give up instead I am trying to get people to realize that simply breeding frogs isn't even going to maintain them longterm in captivity. 



frogfarm said:


> And please stop citing things about reintroduction as I`m not arguing towards reintroduction. We`ll probably not be looking towards that so why make the criteria so hard. As I said once they hit captivity they start changing and adapting. We`re going to loose the wild genes just by them being in captivity. I don`t need to contemplate something that we have no control over.


Actually I am citing the reintroduction articles because they contain important imformation on the effects of captive breeding.... if you want the best discussios on the effects of captive breeding.. those currently contain the best information. 
Contrary to your statement we do have control over how much they change in captivity. this is effectively the difference between a wolf and a domestic dog... if you don't think attempting to maintain the widest genetic diversity (which is going to affect disease resistence.. as well as other items) and simply keeping them alive in captivity is sufficient then we don't have anything further to discuss as you've made up your mind that there isn't any "value" in a wild type frog. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> Can you explain your defense in response to the plasticity of different color patterns and toxicity levels in pumilio when we know that those are not fixed in a large section of thier range?
> 
> Nothing in your response refutes the effects of relaxed selection as the breeder is directly selecting to fix the phenotype. However over generations (In some species as little as one but virtually always by the tenth) morphological differences begin to crop up (how often did you take a pair of calipers to a large group and check them?) In some species egg production is directly affected both in frequency of reproduction, number of offspring and/or egg size....
> 
> ...


And I never said there wasn`t any value in a wild type frog, just that, if they`re not going back into nature and they are changing, then they shouldn`t have to worry about disease resistance and certain traits in captivity. The only chance they have for survival in captivity is being bold, eating well, etc. If they are to survive in captivity then they need to adapt to that. If they are never going to use their disease resistance and we can`t see it in captivity and they aren`t going to be re released than why make it harder to maintain them.
How many people keep wolves nowadays?
As I`ve said people aren`t even in the hobby 2 years at this point and won`t be around. The more you tell them they can`t accomplish anything unless they track lines and let other people choose what they breed together, it`s lost.

I`m just wondering if your pushing towards something viable or just pushing it because it`s the only way it will "work" in your eyes. All the science and reports don`t work if we don`t have the #`s and people to follow it. How many alleles can we loose in captivity and still have a frog that looks and acts like a frog from nature for the situations we give them in captivity? Why maintain allelles that aren`t outwardly visible if they have no use or observable characteristics for the only homes they will ever know?


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm no guru, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the very fact that we change their environment so drasticly when raising/breeding them going to completely change what triggers and stresses play on their collective genetics? Is it even possible to keep a completely "wild-type" strain in captive collections over generations? For that matter, by whom and how is "wild-type" even determined? Isn't that sort of a judgement call. The animal has a predisposition to genetic diversity in order to survive changes in environment, among other things. At what point have enough genetic options been closed out that we no longer consider it representative of the wild population?

It seems everyone has very strong opinions about things that I don't think can be quantified.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Actually you claimed that the fish that reached "responsible breeders" would be saved.



That isn't exactly what I said either, and again a false presumption as to my meaning. The repeated insinuation that I've stated that bringing them into captivity and presuming that they can be saved with no management plan is flat out false. 

To even imply that someone that has experience in the field is trying to make the claim that success is possible without a plan is a rather naive and foolish thing to say or presume. 

I didn't think I needed to really specify what I meant by responsible breeders, since I'd already agreed that a plan was a necessity. However, since the term responsible is also being misunderstood, my idea of a responsible breeder is someone who has the knowledge, skills or experience and capacity to manage a captive population. Not the local fish club guru.




Ed said:


> When challenged to provide proof that the fish would be managed as a species and not by breeding them for conformation (like purebred dogs) which directly affects allele frequency or by the masses in huge aquaculture tanks (where the effects of large scale aquaculture are known) there was silence on your part. See below for the rest of my comment on this item....


That is primarily the root of your problems, and why threads tend to degenerate into petty bickering. Your word here...*CHALLENGED*. Challenging someone and demanding evidence in a thoroughly demonstrative manner is not the definition of having an intelligent conversation where opinions and ideas are put forth and discussed. 

Who are you to demand proof that a species will be managed properly? To be blunt Ed, You reply with hostility and demands, and claim there was "silence on my part" when you don't get what you seem to think you are owed by people. Why would anyone see fit to answer any of your demands when they are exceedingly hostile?

As I know of no specific organized program relating only to L series catfishes, I'm going to answer ONLY to that. There are a number of responsible breeders, who are more than qualified, with the necessary experience to manage such a program on their own. I happen to be one of them. What is lacking is organization and defining the goals.

That part is not one that is insurmountable. 




Ed said:


> Can you name any population management plans that were in place for any other fish by private individuals other than a couple done by the AKA? Or are you blowing smoke?



I show proof that it's possible, and your response is to increase the parameters of your demands. I don't claim to know of every program in effect, I made mention of a couple that proves the effort is there, I answered your charges.




Ed said:


> I have stated that they are going to go extinct as a species in either case regardless if they are left in the wild or are brought into captivity unless the captive population is handled in such a way as to prevent
> 1) phenotypical adaptation
> 2) genetic drift.
> Both of these require a PMP and action planThis is why it is not altruistic nor is it anything but sophistry on anyone's part for claiming that this is conservation...



I've stated several times I agree that it requires a plan. I wonder why you are afraid to actually be honest here Ed, and quit hiding behind words like sophistry? Sophistry is defined as subtle, trickery, tricky wording, false argument etc. It implies that the person doing it is intentionally perpetrating a lie for their own ends. 

I've been nothing but honest and direct with my intent and goals. 

Pity you can't say the same.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> And I never said there wasn`t any value in a wild type frog, just that, if they`re not going back into nature and they are changing, then they shouldn`t have to worry about disease resistance and certain traits in captivity.?


Why wouldn't they have to worry about diseases in captivity? The greater the loss of the genetic variation in disease resistance, the greater the risk of a pathogen being able to wipe out sections of the population. 




frogfarm said:


> The only chance they have for survival in captivity is being bold, eating well, etc. If they are to survive in captivity then they need to adapt to that. If they are never going to use their disease resistance and we can`t see it in captivity and they aren`t going to be re released than why make it harder to maintain them.


Because the greater the preserved allele frequency the longer the population will survive in captivity as a whole. If we don't preserve the frequency as much as possible then the population will die out and if possible people will be trying to reimport them or smuggle them into the country. If is a population that is extinct in the wild then it will be really extinct. This has occured in other vertebrate taxa... Personally, I don't want to see anything go extinct and this is an extinction crisis that can be stopped. 




frogfarm said:


> How many people keep wolves nowadays?


Does it matter? It was an analogy of the differences between a domesticated animals and a wild animal. But if someone wanted to keep a domestic animal that looked like a wolf they wouldn't be able to do so as the phenotype was lost.. 



frogfarm said:


> As I`ve said people aren`t even in the hobby 2 years at this point and won`t be around. The more you tell them they can`t accomplish anything unless they track lines and let other people choose what they breed together, it`s lost.


And to tell you the truth, that portion of the hobby doesn't matter in the long-term prospects of the population. Those animals can be treated as animals migrating into a population sink (which is what it is..). 



frogfarm said:


> I`m just wondering if your pushing towards something viable or just pushing it because it`s the only way it will "work" in your eyes. All the science and reports don`t work if we don`t have the #`s and people to follow it. How many alleles can we loose in captivity and still have a frog that looks and acts like a frog from nature for the situations we give them in captivity? Why maintain allelles that aren`t outwardly visible if they have no use or observable characteristics for the only homes they will ever know?



If the information isn't out there then how can people know to participate? In either case the frog's lose. 

Depends on what you mean by look like a frog from the wild. According to some people here we are already losing size and intensity of coloration (the last one we might be able to fix with modifications to the carotenoids we offer). When I first got into the hobby, you didn't hear about tincts producing egg clutches every week as a common event... (that can be part nutritional but those traits are also highly genetically controlled).. A standard Plymouth Rock looks a lot like a basic jungle fowl but its allele frequency is very different. 

If we are going to only concern ourselves with conformational alleles then we might as well go the AKC route and breed only for conformations along with all of the associated problems that incurs including susceptiability of some breeds to different diseases (like rotties, dobermans and labs being more susceptibility to canine parvovirus. 

The number of animals needed for a sustainable population are easily within the grasp of the number of long-term keepers particuarly given the life span of the frogs. At the upper age limits we have Dendorbates ssp which can remain reproductive for more than 25 years... while some of the smalller species appear to be closer to 8 to 10 years. In cases like this even a founder population of 30-50 frogs should see us close to 100 years. In worse case it might be possible to sustain populations with less (see the Przewalski's Horse example or the Blackfooted Ferret) as long as there are a core of dedicated keepers willing to look into other bloodlines to maximize allele frequency). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Boondoggle said:


> I'm no guru, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the very fact that we change their environment so drasticly when raising/breeding them going to completely change what triggers and stresses play on their collective genetics? Is it even possible to keep a completely "wild-type" strain in captive collections over generations? For that matter, by whom and how is "wild-type" even determined? Isn't that sort of a judgement call. The animal has a predisposition to genetic diversity in order to survive changes in environment, among other things. At what point have enough genetic options been closed out that we no longer consider it representative of the wild population?
> 
> It seems everyone has very strong opinions about things that I don't think can be quantified.


Check out the ASN manual. There are mathmatical formulas that determine it based on how long you want a population to retain maximal allele frequency. I've seen formula that predict up to 500 years in captivity.. however in number less than those suggested by the formula, it is determined by the number of imported founders. So it can be quantified.

If the founders can't be located or unknown, then predictions can be statistically made via lines of interrelated animals (you need to try and track them backwards by seeing who got what from who, and based on specific criteria apply it to the degree of interbreeding). 

Wild type is defined as the population at the moment of collection. You have no control over the wild population after that point and if enviromental conditions change, you could get drift from the population collected but in the captive population, there isn't any way to simulate that drift you you maintain the snapshot. See http://www.cbsg.org/cbsg/content/fi...nagement/frankham_genetic_adaptation_2008.pdf 

As to when it is not reintroducible, that depends somewhat on the population in the wild. If the wild population has been totally extirpated then it may still be reintroducible (provided it has been kept away from non-sympatric animals and is free of novel to the area diseases and pathogens) even if some significant frequency shifts have occured as the selective pressures may force them back into the correct directions (but if they are too fixed then, the introductions will fail). See some of the article in my earlier posts. 

It also depends on the captive population. If it has been allowed to drift significantly then it may have become unreleasable as the introductions will cause significant damage to the genetics of the wild population or not survive (A good example is the large breasted version of the domestic turkey or bulldogs). There is a lot in the conservation literature on these issues. 

Ed


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> In worse case it might be possible to sustain populations with less (see the Przewalski's Horse example or the Blackfooted Ferret) *as long as there are a core of dedicated keepers* willing to look into other bloodlines to maximize allele frequency).
> Ed



Responsible breeders, dedicated keepers. Sounds basically the same to me. 

Perhaps you can explain why it is sophistry when I said this, but gospel when you say it?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

sigh 


Imperial_Aquatics said:


> That isn't exactly what I said either, and again a false presumption as to my meaning. The repeated insinuation that I've stated that bringing them into captivity and presuming that they can be saved with no management plan is flat out false.


Actually pretty much our entire argument hinges on the following quote from you. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> You are trying to imply that there is a selfish intent for sake of ownership in putting forth the idea that it is better to have them in captivity than destroyed by loss of habitat. Well sorry I don't agree, and not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant or wrong.


This appears to contradict the statement that a breeding plan is necessary as it justifies simply collecting everything and sticking it in a tank regardless of the end result..



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> To even imply that someone that has experience in the field is trying to make the claim that success is possible without a plan is a rather naive and foolish thing to say or presume.
> I didn't think I needed to really specify what I meant by responsible breeders, since I'd already agreed that a plan was a necessity. However, since the term responsible is also being misunderstood, my idea of a responsible breeder is someone who has the knowledge, skills or experience and capacity to manage a captive population. Not the local fish club guru. .


I didn’t make the statement from you that I quoted above… about it being better for them to be alive in captivity … 
I asked if you could provide proof of one breeding program (other than the AKA) by responsible breeders.. Should I assume that you are unaware of any? So you are assuming that at least some of the fish in theory could end up in the hands of “responsible” breeders , who may or may not have or develop a breeding program to sustain them? 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> That is primarily the root of your problems, and why threads tend to degenerate into petty bickering. Your word here...*CHALLENGED*. Challenging someone and demanding evidence in a thoroughly demonstrative manner is not the definition of having an intelligent conversation where opinions and ideas are put forth and discussed. .


One can challenge someone to provide information or data without a direct statement such as I dare you etc.. simple refusal can be a challenge as can rhetorical questioning without attempting to provide data or proof to support a statement or conclusion. I suggest you check out the tone of your response when you initially responded to the horse example.. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Who are you to demand proof that a species will be managed properly? To be blunt Ed, You reply with hostility and demands, and claim there was "silence on my part" when you don't get what you seem to think you are owed by people. Why would anyone see fit to answer any of your demands when they are exceedingly hostile? .


 You set the tone of the responses in the response to the horse example and attempting to twist wordings. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Later in your post, you comment that breeding programs that don't have enough diversity to maintain a population for a century is just "a simple sophistry to justify the possession of the animal". A bit of a contradiction if you are trying to make the point that just 9 animals constitutes sufficient genetic diversity for a species survival. .


This was a deliberate attempt to twist words. My comment on the sophistry was specifically targeted at the argument that the animal (regardless of the type) is going to be better off in captivity than going extinct in the wild. That is a sophistry to justify selfishness. .. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> As I know of no specific organized program relating only to L series catfishes, I'm going to answer ONLY to that. There are a number of responsible breeders, who are more than qualified, with the necessary experience to manage such a program on their own. I happen to be one of them. What is lacking is organization and defining the goals. .


 I never said that there weren’t a large number of qualified breeders who could do so.. Only if there was and then after than whether or not there were any breeding programs outside of the AKA for any species run by private individuals (which you have declined to answer, fine I'll respect that declination). 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> That part is not one that is insurmountable. .


 Never said or thought it was. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I show proof that it's possible, and your response is to increase the parameters of your demands. I don't claim to know of every program in effect, I made mention of a couple that proves the effort is there, I answered your charges.


Which couple? I must have missed them. 



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Sophistry is defined as subtle, trickery, tricky wording, false argument etc. It implies that the person doing it is intentionally perpetrating a lie for their own ends.


Like saying that bringing a species into captivity is automatically better for it than letting it die when both are the effective end of the species?


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Hey Imperial,

You really should just get off Ed's back. From reading through the posts, you have been the uncivil and disrespectful one. Ed has just tried to point out where your arguments are most retarded.

The truth is that frogs are coming from the wild all the time and if you want some of those, go buy some. Maybe you'll be able to breed them, maybe not. maybe you'll stay in the hobby long enough to trade or sell some of the offspring to other breeders. And maybe some of their "wild-type" genome will pass on to those other breeders. This is the current extent of our "planning" for most dendrobatids.

Then again, maybe not. Of the hundreds to thousands of wild frogs that are harvested by the Amer-Indians and stuffed into bottles to sit for months, maybe a few dozen will make it to the coast and to the "legally-licensed" exporter. Maybe there will be some science to know how many can be sent out of the country sustainably, though maybe the exporter has bribed a local official to take out as many frogs as he wants. Maybe he'll be able to keep a few, sickly animals alive long enough to ship out to Miami and the American Importer. Maybe the importer will effectively treat wild diseases in the frogs. Maybe the frogs you'll get won't have some sort of frog "AIDS" that no veterinarian has ever seen and infect the entire hobby with the plague.

You'll get your frogs, but at what price to the environment, to the wild populations of frogs (we pretend to care about SOOOOO much!), and (ultimately) to the hobby itself.

You do what you want. There are no enforceable laws that would keep you from it. The truth is that most of your arguments here are pretty self-serving and that is what you want most, to serve yourself. I wish I could say that there is a dart frog hobby community, but I think (that too) is mostly a myth at this point in time.

Good luck in your search, Richard.



Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Responsible breeders, dedicated keepers. Sounds basically the same to me.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why it is sophistry when I said this, but gospel when you say it?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> Responsible breeders, dedicated keepers. Sounds basically the same to me.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why it is sophistry when I said this, but gospel when you say it?


Its not gospel... 
This was in the context (from which it was plucked) of having a core group of people tracking the alleles and working on a long term plan.. which has been my argument from the beginning. From the beginning I defined out the group and what was needed and didn't rely on nebulous wording to prevent defintions. I didn't assume the readership would automatically "know" what I had in mind.. 

Ed


----------



## Catfur (Oct 5, 2004)

I don't really care how long all of you people argue round and around and around about this subject, but I would appreciate it if you would all try to not offend each other; this seems to be spiraling towards a general state of unpleasantness.


----------



## Imperial_Aquatics (Aug 27, 2009)

Ed said:


> Its not gospel...
> This was in the context (from which it was plucked) of having a core group of people tracking the alleles and working on a long term plan.. which has been my argument from the beginning. From the beginning I defined out the group and what was needed and didn't rely on nebulous wording to prevent defintions. I didn't assume the readership would automatically "know" what I had in mind..
> 
> Ed


I used no nebulous wording to prevent definitions, I've even tried to explain where it was clear you lacked understanding.

It's no fault of mine that you can't extrapolate the meaning or intent of the word "responsible" in the context it was used. Seemed pretty basic to me, and I even clarified my intent in using the word. 

I tried to explain my position, even though you insisted on changing the terms of your argument in post after post, even though you insisted on calling me a liar, albeit hidden behind words with the same meaning.

I've stated quite clearly that I was in complete agreement that any species needed a management plan, anyone who wishes can see I said it multiple times. 

And to be honest, your demand for proof regarding management where L series catfishes is concerned is irrelevant. There exists sufficient evidence to show that where a need presents itself, "dedicated keepers" your words, will form programs. Considering the discussions I've seen on forums where a species discussion takes priority over the egotism of certain members, people actually discuss potential solutions. You might want to look into that. 

Like it or not, it is a matter of fact that my opinion comes from concern for species and my interest in making a difference is based in altruistic motives. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.

I'm not the one attempting to be deceitful.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Catfur said:


> I don't really care how long all of you people argue round and around and around about this subject, but I would appreciate it if you would all try to not offend each other; this seems to be spiraling towards a general state of unpleasantness.


But Daaaaad he started it...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Imperial_Aquatics said:


> I used no nebulous wording to prevent definitions, I've even tried to explain where it was clear you lacked understanding.
> 
> It's no fault of mine that you can't extrapolate the meaning or intent of the word "responsible" in the context it was used. Seemed pretty basic to me, and I even clarified my intent in using the word.
> 
> ...



See my last two posts in direct response to you. 

Ed


----------



## Boondoggle (Dec 9, 2007)

Woodsman said:


> Hey Imperial,
> 
> You really should just get off Ed's back. From reading through the posts, you have been the uncivil and disrespectful one. Ed has just tried to point out where your arguments are most retarded.
> 
> ...


I was beginning to think that we would never see eye to eye on anything Richard, but this was very well put. Kudos....except for the cynical dart frog hobby community thing.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Why don`t you just lay off imperial as even Ed said that thru legal imports of wild caught frogs would give them enough "value" for the Amer-indians to keep from destroying their habitat to grow food or put up a hotel! 



Woodsman said:


> Hey Imperial,
> 
> You really should just get off Ed's back. From reading through the posts, you have been the uncivil and disrespectful one. Ed has just tried to point out where your arguments are most retarded.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Yes, color and pattern can be chosen to match what was in the wild. If it`s not fixed how are ours going to look like the ones in the wild in 100 years, doesn`t matter because they will have different selection pressure. Even if some stay toxic than the population will keep it`s defense as mimics get the same defense living amongst poisonous look alikes.
And yes I took pics of eggs and calipered the dwarfs and they were in the same range of size. Even in the wild you have a range of sizes of adults and they keep growing till they die, I didn`t take the test that long.


Ed said:


> Can you explain your defense in response to the plasticity of different color patterns and toxicity levels in pumilio when we know that those are not fixed in a large section of thier range?
> 
> Nothing in your response refutes the effects of relaxed selection as the breeder is directly selecting to fix the phenotype. However over generations (In some species as little as one but virtually always by the tenth) morphological differences begin to crop up (how often did you take a pair of calipers to a large group and check them?) In some species egg production is directly affected both in frequency of reproduction, number of offspring and/or egg size....
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

And I suppose your going to be able to test in captivity to make sure these allelles are being found in the groups you decide to breed or are you just talking about an exponential growth to keep all these alleles in the population. What about the situation we have w/ the golden atelopus. Since there are some left trying ot breed that seem to have been resistant to chytrid or developed immunity, how do you know if any captive specimens possess this strength to be reintroduced? Wouldn`t releasing animals back into the wild mess w/ that frequency. Wouldn`t the population change on it`s own if the couple dozen individuals left out there start breeding. What does that near extinction event do to the amount of alleles present? It seems every survivor would need the disease resistance for chytrid effectively reducing the population. I sure hope they would breed using the methods prescribed or they may also turn out inbred and different. What has whittled the antelopes legs so narrow but the presence of a predator, I can`t remember the exact quote but you get the idea. No Matter what were not going to have the same thing found in the wild in 500 years. They will diverge just as any species moved to a new area.
So anyway how do you choose from the 100`s of offspring each frog produces which ones have the right genetics to go on and sire the captive population. Either you`ll have to grow the population forever or your going to have to make choices on which survive to breed.


I`m again, not saying it isn`t the best model to keep them around, I just don`t think they`ll just become deformed and die out completely if not managed like you say. They`ll be exposed to different diseases and pathogens in captivity than they would in the wild, this alone will select for differences in the immune system between a wild pop and captive. Again not saying it`s not the best program just that I don`t believe your way is the only way and just outbreeding and being responsible(akc style?) is pure sophistry. There are too many unknowns.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Yes, color and pattern can be chosen to match what was in the wild. If it`s not fixed how are ours going to look like the ones in the wild in 100 years, doesn`t matter because they will have different selection pressure. Even if some stay toxic than the population will keep it`s defense as mimics get the same defense living amongst poisonous look alikes.


Actually in pumilio, it looks like the major driver of pattern change is mate selection by fhe females and then to a lesser extent predation. So the primary driver for the change in locality patterns are the preferences of the females (which may be driven by differences in the immune system between the female and the male). 
However according to your arguments why even bother with trying to maintain specific populations? If all we are going to use is the criteria here: 


frogfarm said:


> if they`re not going back into nature and they are changing, then they shouldn`t have to worry about disease resistance and certain traits in captivity. The only chance they have for survival in captivity is being bold, eating well, etc. If they are to survive in captivity then they need to adapt to that.


Then all that matters is that it look like the original population.. So it should be okay to cross breed Costa Rican Bluejeans with Mancreek or Almirante Pumilio that look like blue jeans as this will not only give you cross bred vigor but frogs that look like the original morphs. From the offspring you can select those that look the most like BJs and sell them as BJs (since the only criteria is that they be bold, look something like the wild type etc then why not mix all of the similar morphs and locations together? It would make outcrossing a whole lot easier and reduce the hassle of trying to keep populations pure (which doesn’t matter anymore anyway). You are making a very strong argument that hybridization and cross breeding is fine. 




frogfarm said:


> And yes I took pics of eggs and calipered the dwarfs and they were in the same range of size. Even in the wild you have a range of sizes of adults and they keep growing till they die, I didn`t take the test that long .


Within the range doesn’t mean that there wasn’t changes in the morphometrics.. Please review the statistical methods and data in the relevant literature. 



frogfarm said:


> And I suppose your going to be able to test in captivity to make sure these allelles are being found in the groups you decide to breed or are you just talking about an exponential growth to keep all these alleles in the population.


If the population is from a known population, then there isn’t a need to test as there are established statistical formula to establish the founder populations (even if the founders are no longer extant). As I stated above see the ASN manual. 



frogfarm said:


> What about the situation we have w/ the golden atelopus. Since there are some left trying ot breed that seem to have been resistant to chytrid or developed immunity, how do you know if any captive specimens possess this strength to be reintroduced? Wouldn`t releasing animals back into the wild mess w/ that frequency. Wouldn`t the population change on it`s own if the couple dozen individuals left out there start breeding. What does that near extinction event do to the amount of alleles present? It seems every survivor would need the disease resistance for chytrid effectively reducing the population. I sure hope they would breed using the methods prescribed or they may also turn out inbred and different. .


I already answered this in a link to a paper you stated you reviewed. See prior post for answer on how this is accomplished if there was a decision to supplement the wild population. (And you are making assumptions that have not been shown to be true in either population). 



frogfarm said:


> What has whittled the antelopes legs so narrow but the presence of a predator, I can`t remember the exact quote but you get the idea. No Matter what were not going to have the same thing found in the wild in 500 years. They will diverge just as any species moved to a new area..


This is a assumption that may/may not be true.. obviously speciation can occur faster than this time frame but speciation can also be much slower. Regardless in any case, so based on this; we should give up attempting to preserve any species or even any locality? 



frogfarm said:


> So anyway how do you choose from the 100`s of offspring each frog produces which ones have the right genetics to go on and sire the captive population. Either you`ll have to grow the population forever or your going to have to make choices on which survive to breed..


This is where statistics are your friend and this question is answered quite thoroughly in the ASN manual.. 



frogfarm said:


> I`m again, not saying it isn`t the best model to keep them around, I just don`t think they`ll just become deformed and die out completely if not managed like you say. They`ll be exposed to different diseases and pathogens in captivity than they would in the wild, this alone will select for differences in the immune system between a wild pop and captive. Again not saying it`s not the best program just that I don`t believe your way is the only way and just outbreeding and being responsible(akc style?) is pure sophistry. There are too many unknowns.


With respect to the disease issue.. if there genetic variation decreases then the ability to resist disease(s) and parasites decreases as the Major Histocompatibility genes are known to be severly affected by inbreeding. 



Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> Actually in pumilio, it looks like the major driver of pattern change is mate selection by fhe females and then to a lesser extent predation. So the primary driver for the change in locality patterns are the preferences of the females
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


Ed, you really can`t argue w/ people who haven`t had genetics 301 can you? Just because someone doesn`t have a full grasp of all the terms your using doesn`t mean your right. 
and to finalize, no amphiban cb studies have even been going on for 50 years let alone 500, all theory as to dart frogs. The truth is that all were arguing is theory. Neither of us can "prove" anything when it comes to darts as to long term effects on captive breeding. I personally don`t like it when you accuse good intent as sophistry and say if your not in my program you might as well just be breeding them for money. I take that as a rude comment and will react against you no matter what. The truth is that I think the ASN program is a good idea and will register when I stabilize my life and collection. The problem is that my main species, terribilis is only here from one or 2 possible breeding groups each morph. I`m trying to not make them look like "just breeding frogs for money" since your plan says there is no hope for them. So what do we do w/ all the morphs that are bottlenecked? I refuse to believe that they will become what was stated above. I don`t believe you because I have hope for everything that doesn`t fit into your plan.
I can`t split these topics up and see mine to copy and paste to keep up w/ you. I`m done wasting my time w/ someone who is arguing religion, have a nice day.
See comments embedded in your quote above.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Aaron,

I’m only going to address a couple of items of it as you have taken a position that renders anything beyond this couple of items moot.



frogfarm said:


> I personally don`t like it when you accuse good intent as sophistry and say if your not in my program you might as well just be breeding them for money.


I really don’t care whose program one participates in/with as long as something is done to keep the frogs around… and this has nothing to do with attempting to make a quick buck via “puppy mill frog breeding” or good intent etc. What I am saying is that if the criteria you set forth are all that matters then provided the frogs approximate the color patterns seen in the wild, then the real genetic background of the frogs is immaterial as the market for the frogs will function the same (based on your criteria for what is needed for the frogs since they won't be released not my criteria). As patterns become common their price will drop until the fall out of favor and other “rarer” patterns will command top dollar until they cycle down and back again… just like the current morph market (or the bearded dragon, leopard gecko, boa, betta, koi, chinchilla, or lovebird markets). Currently there is a lot of interest but little organization in the hobby on keeping the various populations going in the hobby. As time passes and different populations cycle up and down in popularity losing genetic diversity, simply acquiring a frog from another breeder won’t guarantee that there is much if any diversity in the genetics (particularly since most don’t give the females any mate choice) so the acquired frog could be the genetic equivalent of an parent or full sibling (and if nothing is done potentially a clone of itself). …




frogfarm said:


> The problem is that my main species, terribilis is only here from one or 2 possible breeding groups each morph. I`m trying to not make them look like "just breeding frogs for money" since your plan says there is no hope for them.


Actually, it is not “my plan” it’s the conservation plan being used to sustain critically endangered amphibians (and other taxa) in captivity. I didn’t develop it… its grounded in hard science and proven in other species from fish to mammals. Furthermore, the risk of losing them in captivity is really at greatest risk if they aren’t managed. If via diligence, populations of horses can be stabilized with a total founding population of 13 animals why are saying I’m saying it can’t be done? If I’m using the horses as an example, obviously I think it can be done since it has been done but if people don’t try to save them then they will probably decline and go extinct like many other animals. 



frogfarm said:


> So what do we do w/ all the morphs that are bottlenecked? I refuse to believe that they will become what was stated above. I don`t believe you because I have hope for everything that doesn`t fit into your plan.


See my comment above immediately above this quote. 




frogfarm said:


> I can`t split these topics up and see mine to copy and paste to keep up w/ you. I`m done wasting my time w/ someone who is arguing religion, have a nice day.
> See comments embedded in your quote above.


Aaron, oddly enough it is exactly like arguing science versus religion as you are demanding the same level of proof as those who dispute evolution do.. You are taking a position equivalent to saying that unless you can show me the entire transitional fossil record for all species; evolution doesn’t exist despite the enormous level of proof. 

But I do want to make one final point, if the populations are managed as I suggest and I’m wrong then the populations are not harmed however if the populations are continued to be managed as has been occurring nd as you are suggesting and you are wrong, then the populations in captivity go extinct. Which is the worse scenario? 

I have nothing further to say on in this thread and will not respond to any further posts here. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

ok. So you think that there is as much evidence out there on dart frog genetics as there is on evolution? Really?
registered outbreeding = ideal, but under worst scenerio am I going to stop trying and only breed animals that have the genetic diversity to succeed and give up on frogs like terribilis? You can keep not breeding darts till you get the perfect scenerio, I`ll not give up hope.



Ed said:


> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I’m only going to address a couple of items of it as you have taken a position that renders anything beyond this couple of items moot.
> 
> ...


----------

