# General Topics > General Discussion & News > Press / News Items >  Group lobbying for possible Amphibian pet trade ban in US

## John Clare

_FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE
_*
Group lobbying for possible Amphibian pet trade ban in the US*
by Dr. John P. Clare - FrogForum.net, London, UK - Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Controversial US charity Defenders of Wildlife have made some progress in their attempt to regulate all trade in amphibians in the US, including import, export, and inter-state trade.  The group hit international headlines in 2009 due to their media campaign against what they termed the “extreme anti-conservation policies” of then Alaskan governor Sarah Palin who was noted for her support of the shooting of wolves from helicopters – so-called aerial hunting.  

In September 2009, Defenders of Wildlife lobbied the US Department of the Interior and the US Department of Agriculture to follow the recommendation of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to monitor and control two diseases found in frogs and other amphibians like salamanders.

One of the diseases, the chytrid fungus - scientific name _Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis_ or “B.d” – has hit the headlines many times since its discovery about 10 years ago.  The fungus has been implicated in the extinction of several species of amphibian and as a likely culprit in the decimation of populations of many others.  The disease has been spread throughout the world by accidental and intentional release of alien amphibians by humans.  

Within the US itself, scientists acknowledge that the disease is widespread.  One US research scientist commented on Monday, _“Lawmakers are coming to this problem at a very late stage in the spread of the disease.  Chytrid is widespread throughout the US and there’s very little we can do about it.  Any new regulation, even implemented today, comes too late to have much tangible benefit.  Should new laws come into effect, the best we can hope for is to limit the spread of new strains and to monitor its presence in wild populations of amphibians.”_  Many scientists throughout the world are currently involved in monitoring and surveying for the disease in wild populations of frogs and salamanders in an attempt to understand how it spreads, which amphibians are vulnerable, and what, if anything, we can do to fight the disease.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently announced their intention to publish a notice in the US Federal Register to solicit public comment and feedback on the proposal.  This will likely take place in the coming months.

Meanwhile, enthusiasts of frogs, toads, newts, salamanders, and other amphibians have reacted sharply to the situation, citing recent attempts by US lawmakers to regulate the trade in constrictor snakes as being nothing short of ban legislation as far as the average citizen is concerned.  Hobbyists have voiced their concern that rather than implement appropriate regulation, state and federal legislators have preferred to attempt outright bans.

We here at FrogForum will of course keep you updated on this debate as it progresses.


Further reading:

Defenders of Wildlife document "The Role of Trade in the Amphibian Crisis"US Fish and Wildlife Service announces plan to solicit public opinion on proposed regulation of Amphibian TradeInternational Amphibian Charity Amphibian Ark's reading of the current stage of the Defenders of Wildlife lobbyDart Frog hobbyist uproar over the proposalNewt and Salamander enthusiasts discuss the situation

----------


## Socrates

See this is another example of people over reacting and NOT thinking.  The problem of Chytrid is not because of people raising and keeping amphibians.  The fungus is present every world in the world and has been probably for centuries.

John if you would like I wrote scientific review article over_ Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis._ It's long, but I assure you I did an excellent job on it and have a full page of around 15-20 references that I used.  Let me know, because maybe it could be posted under a link or something.

----------


## Kurt

Before signing on here tonight I read Amphibian Ark's proposal and from what I can gather there is no ban being proposed. What is being proposed is regulation of amphibian trade in and out of the country. Under the proposal, amphibians shipments will be tested for Bd and ranivirus. I have no problem with this. My question  I will ask when the time comes is, what happens when a shipment tests positive? Will the animals be treated or destroyed?
I think with the proposed regulation, that we will be receiving higher quality/healthier amphibians. They may be a little bit more expensive then before, but at least the risk of sick animals will deminish a little bit.

The outright ban on large Boids is wrong and was proposed by a Florida senator Bill Nelson (D), due to established populations in the Everglades of non-native Burmese pythons, _Python molurus bivittatus_ and red-tailed boas, _Boa constrictor ssp_. and African rock pythons, _Python sebae_ elsewhere in Florida. The HSUS gloom and doom prophecies of these snakes spreading out of over most of the US has scared a few people. So the ban has gained some support even though it is a Southern Florida problem and not a problem for the rest of the country. The bill is now up for review before the full US Senate. I know Kevin McCurley at NERD/Zoo Creatures is upset about this, as he breeds designer reticulated pythons.

----------


## Paul Rust

*I agree with everyone so far. I am all for testing but they will be destroyed. Maybe this will make it even harder to smuggle animals now that more eyes will be focused on the trade. This brings into sharp relief my involvement with TWI/ASN. I have my animals registered with them. If a ban goes into place will they be required to give up our names and have our animals destroyed while everyone else keeps theirs because they don't know about them? I am second guessing registering any more.*

----------


## Kurt

Well, the python ban only includes the sale of these animals across state borders.

----------


## Johnny O. Farnen

While worried about this (it is one of the factors contributing against my N. kaiseri program I have started here...). I do not see any reason to panic yet. It is time to get to writing letters. Unlike boss and pythons, there are far too few of us to not do so now. I will add more to this when I get to a real computer.

----------


## Paul Rust

> While worried about this (it is one of the factors contributing against my N. kaiseri program I have started here...). I do not see any reason to panic yet. It is time to get to writing letters. Unlike boss and pythons, there are far too few of us to not do so now. I will add more to this when I get to a real computer.


 *Please do, I have never really gotten involved in stuff like this but I will go to war over this one. Oh, for the record I want everyone to know that I only have a Fire Bellied toad, that's it, nothing else, really!*  :Wink:

----------


## John Clare

I think the press release makes a good point - when have you known legislators to care enough to fairly regulate for a topic like this of marginal voting consequence?  Easier to ban outright.

----------


## Johnny O. Farnen

I agree wholeheartedly, John. Too often in the recent past have we seen "blanket laws" passed pertaining to the pet trade. While it seems draconian to us keepers and hobbyists, to the "average joe" on the street, they could care less. 

Most of you know exactly what I am talking about- _"Yeah, I have a basement full of salamnders and frogs." "You have what?"_. Unless you find a lawmaker with a critter room full of dart frogs or newts, for all intensive purposes everyone involved in the legislative process is an "average joe".

Add in the detrimental effect of a token few zealots with big funding backing them and things like the California Ambystomid Ban and the Washington State Invasive Aquatic Species Ban happen.

There is hope though. Forgive me for dredging up old news and perhaps even riding on laurels, but the success of the  write in campaign against HR669 a while back is a prime example of how to win.

Thankfully, in this case, there is plenty of time to raise objection the proper way as detailed in this posting by Jen Macke over at Caudata.org. Pay special attention to the release by Amphibian Ark she includes:

*Amphibian Ark has prepared a summary of the facts, implications, and opportunities for people to comment on the petition:
http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/US_a...e_proposal.pdf*

----------


## Terry

I know they will be coming after me - after all I keep a few of those fungus spreading frogs that will eventually destroy the world.  :Big Grin: 

Seriously, the problem with groups like Defenders of Wildlife, they don't see the benefit of captive breeding programs. I would like to see zoos and other serious amphibian hobbyists get together and work on saving these animals.

----------


## Johnny O. Farnen

> I know they will be coming after me - after all I keep a few of those fungus spreading frogs that will eventually destroy the world. 
> 
> Seriously, the problem with groups like Defenders of Wildlife, they don't see the benefit of captive breeding programs. I would like to see zoos and other serious amphibian hobbyists get together and work on saving these animals.


Terry, i could not agree more. If I could figure out a way to convince the herpetologists and zoos once and for all that there are a good many "amatures" around doing real work with these animals that is just as valid as the work they are doing, I would. I feel this gap will ultimately doom the species the "big" budgets ignore.

The sheer pettiness of the scientific community and the zealots' lobby powers will ultimately be the downfall of us all.

As long as this animosity continues, the prospect of the science and the hobby becoming extinct due to blanket laws is a real as Bd extinctions.

In short, we all lose to ignorance and ego.

----------


## JeffX

From what I understand this isn't an outright ban, but a move to test all imported amphibians.  Which should have been done years ago when this first crept up.  We probably could have saved several species if something was done earlier.

----------


## John Clare

> From what I understand this isn't an outright ban, but a move to test all imported amphibians.  Which should have been done years ago when this first crept up.  We probably could have saved several species if something was done earlier.


And that is why:




> I think the press release makes a good point - when have you known legislators to care enough to fairly regulate for a topic like this of marginal voting consequence?  Easier to ban outright.

----------


## JeffX

Well hopefully an outright ban won't happen.  We can always start writing to let our representatives know the facts.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

I will be blunt.  There needs to be some sort of regulation in place to  slow the spread of bd.  Not shipping amphibians around all over the  place unless there is testing for the disease is probably a good idea.   An example of how this works:

With stuff like cattle and poultry, facilities must be periodically  tested to determine whether or not the animals are infected with Mad  Cow, Avian Flu etc.  A similar protocol could be in place before people  are allowed to ship amphibian adults and larvae.  Not all frogs need be  inspected in this manner, simply a sample of each species under  consideration.  A toe clipping or skin swab would be taken of a sample  of the amphibians.  This sample would be mixed with Taq Polymerase,  Nucleotides, a Primer that marks the start and stop markers for a  genetic marker for bd, and some pH Buffers and this would be subjected  to a cycle of heating and cooling to amplify the DNA and make it  detectable.  If when run through an electrophoresis jell something shows  up, the frog is infected and the facility will need to be quarantined  and the frogs treated.

Third party or even university labs can be used for this, and PCR is  relatively cheap.  Multiple samples can be run in each well plate to  save time and money, and it provides good data on the spread of the  disease within the US.  Particularly with wild caught specimens  collected for the pet trade and Biological Supply Markets.  Locality  data would also be a good idea.




> See this is another example of people over reacting and NOT thinking.   The problem of Chytrid is not because of people raising and keeping  amphibians.  The fungus is present every world in the world and has been  probably for centuries.


No.  It has not.  Chytrid is native to Africa and has been spread to the the New World and Asia by releases of Xenopus laevis from research and medical colonies, and later by the spread of infected bullfrogs which have been introduced... pretty much everywhere.  




> The sheer pettiness of the scientific community and the zealots' lobby  powers will ultimately be the downfall of us all.


Most of us scientists that work with reptiles and amphibians do keep them as pets.  I would be careful how you approach this...

Frankly, an outright ban is too costly to enforce.  A testing protocol for interstate trade and importation is what you are more likely to see, because the cost of that can be passed on to consumers and the fees for import permits can generate a small amount of revenue.

----------


## John Clare

Those animals are tested because they are in our food chain.  With the exception of Asian food markets around the US, the majority of amphibians in the US are not part of the human food chain and thus are a low priority for any powers-that-be.  

I disagree with what you see as the probable result of the two possibilities - an outright ban is easier to legislate and fund than testing for pets that, let's face it, are not kept by many people.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> Those animals are tested because they are in our food chain.  With the exception of Asian food markets around the US, the majority of amphibians in the US are not part of the human food chain and thus are a low priority for any powers-that-be.  
> 
> I disagree with what you see as the probable result of the two possibilities - an outright ban is easier to legislate and fund than testing for pets that, let's face it, are not kept by many people.


Frogs are kept by plenty of people.  Maybe not as hobbyists, but frogs are used both living and dead for biological experiments in primary, secondary, and post highschool educational environments.  Live bullfrogs get shipped to universities in every state in the country.  To say nothing of Xenopus. 

It would be flat out stupid to ban the interstate transport of frogs, and the FWS knows it.  Which is why they wont do it. In this case, it is not a politician making the laws.  Elected officials are not the ones proposing these rules.  It is the FWS acting under existing regulation.

If you would actually read the rule itself:




> *Abstract:* We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live  amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the  Lacey Act unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis  (chytrid fungus). The importation and introduction of live amphibians  infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a  threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as  well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources.  For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an  injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or  transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the  Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any  means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for scientific, medical,  educational, or zoological purposes.


In other words, the interstate trade in amphibians would be prohibited unless said amphibians are certified to be free of chytrid.  Again, the exact steps in all likelyhood that I mentioned above.  

Amphibians infected with chytrid are prohibited from being shipped across state lines unless a proper permit is obtained for research, educational, medical, or zoological reasons.  In other words, labs, teaching institutions, and museums can get frogs with chytrid by permit.

Oh the horror!  The shock!  This regulations is common sense and does not even resemble the amphibian ban that paranoid hobbyists with persecution complexes think it does.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

While I am at it, I have a general question.

Why is it that herp hobbyists in general seldom actually read the text of rule changes or legislation before getting into an uproar about them?  People take organizations with explicit political agendas at their word that legislation or regulations amount to a ban but never actually read the text that is being objected to.  It is really funny when someone puts their foot in their mouth in that respect.

----------


## froghobbiest

Well this is the first time I read something like this and I see alot of good points but ima put it like this; as with anything else they ban or make illegal people are still going to find a way to do it no matter what only to get rid of it years later. For example marijuana is illegal yet in some state its becoming legal..why?Ive witnessed first hand what it could do to your brain an ima be honest I use to smoke it but not no more. Anyway to pass this (in my opinion) is a waste of time. Im upfor making the world better but some things are pointless unless they really tend to enforce this to the full extent.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> Well this is the first time I read something like this and I see alot of good points but ima put it like this; as with anything else they ban or make illegal people are still going to find a way to do it no matter what only to get rid of it years later. For example marijuana is illegal yet in some state its becoming legal..why?Ive witnessed first hand what it could do to your brain an ima be honest I use to smoke it but not no more. Anyway to pass this (in my opinion) is a waste of time. Im upfor making the world better but some things are pointless unless they really tend to enforce this to the full extent.


By that same logic, making a lot of things illegal is a waste of time.  Afterall, no matter how hard we try some tinpot dictator out there will commit war crimes.  No matter how illegal we make it, slavery will still happen!  Then there is murder... afterall, that is what chytrid does to amphibian populations. 

Chitrid is really nasty for frogs.  Because of it, many of the frogs in Central America, as well as most of the ranids native to the pacific north west are extinct or on their way there.  If we cannot tell ourselves that we need to curtail its spread, then we have no justification for having any environmental law whatsoever.  Afterall, Chytrid was spread to the new world by hobbyists and biopharmaceutical companies. 

These rules can be enforced the same way laws dealing with livestock are.  The infrastructure is already in place it just needs to be expanded a bit.  You will still have small scale illegal shipping by private individuals, but that is nothing like the commercial interstate transport that occurs right now.  This will also encourage captive breeding, not curtail it.  This is because it will become increasingly difficult and thus costly to collect amphibians commercially.  

The whole reason dendrobatids are captive bred now is because they were being driven to extinction by commercial collection and habitat destruction and the cost to get them became so high people started breeding them.

----------


## Johnny O. Farnen

As I am on my phone I cannot provide a link, but if you are ignoring this issue, have a go at the recent updates to New Mexico's amphibian pet laws. Yes, you can get permits for some species if you do not mind paying out a few grand. No, you can not yet permits as the bulk of species are blanket banned...

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

Hate to double post, but there are some gems in here I did not get a  chance to cover because my roommate and I are hot-seating on the only  internet connection.





> John if you would like I wrote scientific review article over_  Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis._ It's long, but I assure you I did an  excellent job on it and have a full page of around 15-20 references  that I used.  Let me know, because maybe it could be posted under a link  or something.


And where is this published?  When i write a term paper, that is completely unpublishable, I have to use more than that per page just to avoid being accused of academic _fraud_.



> My question  I  will ask when the time comes is, what  happens when a shipment tests positive? Will the animals be treated or  destroyed?


I would imagine they would be  destroyed.  Treating requires a course of fungicide treatment that is  likely to kill the frog anyway,




> *  If a ban goes into place will they be required to  give up our names and have our animals destroyed while everyone else  keeps theirs because they don't know about them? I am second guessing  registering any more.*


There is not ban going  into place.  No one is persecuting people who keep frogs.



> I  know they will be coming after me - after all I keep a few of those  fungus spreading frogs that will eventually destroy the world.


Take off the tinfoil hat.




> Seriously, the problem with groups like Defenders of Wildlife, they  don't see the benefit of captive breeding programs. I would like to see  zoos and other serious amphibian hobbyists get together and work on  saving these animals.


They already are.  Or have you not been paying  attention to the Amphibian ARK?

That having been said, the proper  place for amphibians to continue existing is not in captivity.  It is  where they are supposed to be.  In the wild.  That does not preclude  keeping them in captivity, but when you have to maintain them in  captivity in order to keep the species alive like we do Axolotl's you  have failed and are merely trying to stave off the inevitable.  

...  Unless the species in question has been a lab rat for 200 years like  the Axolotl and Xenopus.




> Terry, i could not agree more. If I could figure out a way to  convince the herpetologists and zoos once and for all that there are a  good many "amatures" around doing real work with these animals that is  just as valid as the work they are doing, I would. I feel this gap will  ultimately doom the species the "big" budgets ignore.


Such  as?  Who on here has the resources required to breed say... Massive  numbers of Rana muscosa?  Do you have environmental growth chambers and  other apparati used to induce reproduction?  Do you know how to perform  artificial fertilization with frogs?

Do you do research into the  underlying causes of amphibian declines so that captive bred specimens  can be re-released?

What percentage of animals bred by hobbyists  would do anything but go to other hobbyists?  Practically none.  The  only successful population reintroduction programs I have ever heard of  have been done by professionals.  Unless there is a group of hobbyists  raising condors or whooping cranes I dont know of.  As a matter of fact  AZGF and the Phoenix Zoo (along with the Fort Worth Zoo) are doing a  very good job breeding large numbers of Lithobates chiricahuensis.  It  is professionals keeping amphibian species such as the entire genus  Atelopus from being eaten alive by Chytrid Fungus, not hobbyists.  

Frankly  your statement is laughable.  




> The sheer pettiness of the  scientific community...


What pettiness?  The idea that  we, the people who usually spend our entire lives as hobbyists and then  go to school for 9-12 years (depending on program) and then study  amphibians professionally might know what we are talking about a tad  better than someone who keeps a few Pyxicephalus or Bombina?

That  people do not even take the time to read the rules proposed by the FWS  before spouting off is mind blowing.  The rule being proposed is in  principle the same thing done with food animals.  You know that FDA  inspection stamp on the packages of meat you buy?  It is pretty much  like that. I suppose the epidemiologists, vets, and agricultural  scientists who contribute to this form of regulation are being petty,  and think themselves more knowledgeable than those who raise cows as  pets who may be hampered if old Betsy dies and they want to take the  meat to market without it being inspected first.  

Nevermind of  course the damage that could be done from Mad Cow, or pathogenic E. coli  stains. 



> *Please do, I have never  really gotten involved in  stuff like this but I will go to war over this one.*


What?   You actually want people shipping around animals infected with chytrid?

Again...  READ THE RULE CHANGE!




> As I am on my phone I cannot provide a link, but if you are ignoring  this issue, have a go at the recent updates to New Mexico's amphibian  pet laws. Yes, you can get permits for some species if you do not mind  paying out a few grand. No, you can not yet permits as the bulk of  species are blanket banned...


Or I can just post the text of New Mexico's new laws, complete with commentary for those who are not fluent in legalese.




> 19.35.7.8 IMPORTATION OF LIVE NON-DOMESTICATED ANIMALS: It shall be unlawful to import any live non-domesticated animal into New Mexico without first obtaining appropriate permit(s) issued by the director except those animals identified within the species importation list group I. Permits will only be issued when all application requirements and provisions have been met. Failure to adhere to or violation of permit provisions may result in the applicant/importer becoming ineligible for importation(s). The pendency or determination of any administrative action or the pendency or determination of a criminal prosecution for the same is not a bar to the other.
> [19.35.7.8 NMAC - N, 7-30-10]


I see nothing in here that is objectionable, and it does nothing to stop people from trading in things already in the state.




> A. Species Importation List: The director of the New Mexico department of game and fish shall develop a species importation list. The species importation list shall be established, maintained, updated or amended by the director as species information and concerns become available and are identified. The species importation list shall be grouped into the following minimum importation “groups” based on the following criteria:
> (1) Species importation list group I are designated domesticated animals and do not require an importation permit;
> (2) Species importation list group II may be for live non-domesticated animals that are not known to be either invasive or dangerous and do not present a known risk to the health, safety or well-being of the public, domestic livestock or to native wildlife and their habitats.
> (3) Species importation list group III may be for live non-domesticated animals that present minimal or manageable concerns that will require specific provisions that must be met prior to issuing an importation permit to address health, safety or well-being of the public, domestic livestock or to native wildlife and their habitats.
> (4) Species importation list group IV may be for live non-domesticated animals that are considered dangerous, invasive, undesirable, state or federal listed threatened, endangered, C.I.T.E.S. appendix 1 or a furbearer. The importation of these species are prohibited for the general public but may be allowed for, scientific study, department approved restoration and recovery plans, zoological display, temporary events/entertainment, use as service animal or by a qualified expert.
> (5) Any species of live non-domesticated animal not currently on the species importation list will be designated group IV until such time as another determination is made by the director.


Oh wait?  You mean you actually need to prove to the state that you can take care of and contain animals that may cause damage to you, others, or if released... the environment?  Shock!  The Horror!  You mean you cannot have animals as pets that are endangered in other states, federally, or internationally protected?  WOW.  I am shocked!  This law is so horrendously draconian it is sickening!

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 




> APPLICATION FOR IMPORTATION:
> A. Any applicant requesting an importation permit for non-domesticated animals must submit the following information with the application:
> (1) a containment or confinement plan indicating where and how the species will be maintained;
> (2) a current and valid certificate from an accredited veterinarian certifying that each animal or rearing facility of origin has been inspected and is in good general health, disease free or that each animal or rearing facility of origin tests disease free for any specific disease(s) following the testing requirements and procedures as identified by the department during the application process, except;


You mean for species that might be problematic within the state of New Mexico, like Bullfrogs or something, you have to show that they will be securely housed and that they are free of Chytrid Fungus-for which bullfrogs serve as asymptomatic carriers?  Tyrants!




> (a) the department may approve an animal supplier that is currently enrolled in an accredited animal breeding program or facility health monitoring standards such as NPIP, AZA, or other government sanctioned program;
> (b) the department may approve detailed and verifiable facility of origin health monitoring plans and records to be submitted by an organization(s) in lieu of a health or rearing facility inspection certificate from an accredited veterinarian;


So... the facility of origin or who you buy the animal from in-state can comply with this law so that you dont need to do all of the legwork yourself?  How reasonable.




> (3) proof from the county and city into which the animal will be imported and held that possession of the animal is allowed;
> (4) proof that all necessary federal permits have been obtained;
> (5) proof that the requested species does not possess or have the immediate potential to carry infectious or contagious diseases and;


Oh heaven forbid that the state make sure you are not doing anything illegal...





> (7) any importing person or entity must notify the department of game and fish within 24 hours of any disease indications or symptoms that manifest themselves among the imported animals.


You mean if you find disease in your stock, you have to report it?  Oh no!




> B. Additional conditions for the importation of a dangerous animal; applicant shall agree to the following provisions before an importation permit is approved:
> (1) enter into a department approved written agreement releasing the department from liability;
> (2) agree to meet all department approved posted warning requirements;
> (3) agree to provide a department approved written warning to any person receiving such animal;
> (4) government agencies or other entities as designated by the director may be exempted from the liability or warning requirements in this subsection.
> C. All application fees are non-refundable.


And if the animal is dangerous you have to make reasonable assurances as to safety, and deal with liability?

Certainly New Mexico's new laws are horribly draconian and target private collectors and are not in any way intended to regulate those who import large numbers of animals from known suppliers into the state...

These are not baseball cards.  They are animals which can in some instances be dangerous, carry disease, and to whom we have certain moral obligations-not only to them,  but wild populations within the state.  Regulation is necessary.

----------


## John Clare

Please stop treating the other posters like children, and tone down the sarcasm. Your approach/attitude     is just annoying, not productive, so even if you have good points to make, no one is going to pay attention to them.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> Please stop treating the other posters like children,  and tone down the sarcasm. Your approach/attitude     is just annoying,  not productive, so even if you have good points to make, no one is going  to pay attention to them.


You are the Admin.  I will do  as you request.  Though my personality precludes completely getting rid  of the sarcasm.  That would be impossible.  I do however feel inclined  to defend my actions in this manner.

I am of the opinion that an  argument deserves to be addressed in a manner proportionate to its  merit.  If an argument is rational and well informed, but in my view  incorrect, then I have no problem not patronizing my opponent.  If  however an argument is ill informed and irrational, not only will I  shred the argument, but I find that sarcasm and general snark are  excellent ways to make someone see how asinine their position is-if they are ever inclined to change their mind.

If  someone cannot separate their pride from what is true, then that is  their problem.  Not mine.  Such individuals remove themselves from  reasoned discussion by definition.  They are simply incapable of having  one, regardless of my tone.  They will resort to emotion and  pig-headedness eventually anyway.

----------


## John Clare

Iratus, it's possible to discuss a topic, make a point, and even disagree without being offensive in the process.  Somehow 99.9% of the people on the forum manage that.  You too can accomplish this with little effort, and make your point.  In fact, you will be more persuasive if you do.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> Iratus, it's possible to discuss a topic, make a point, and even disagree without being offensive in the process.  Somehow 99.9% of the people on the forum manage that.  You too can accomplish this with little effort, and make your point.  In fact, you will be more persuasive if you do.


I am naturally prone to sarcasm and contempt.  Sometimes people are thin-skinned.  I can tone it down, but not kill it (it just wouldn't be me if I did).  If it will further discussion, I can remove some of it from the above, and repost. Particularly if that will get people to actually address the argument-and read the rules in question.  

There is a question of post-deletion which I see has happened with some of those by one named Crotalus (my roommate for the summer, and collaborator).  If the posts were deleted for TOS violations, accidentally or through computer glitch (board reverting to backups or something) then that is one thing.  Deleting them for the purposes of censoring is another and even if legal and within one's rights as admin/staff/mod is not morally OK.  It would be nice if that was clarified.  He is standing over my shoulder wondering where his posts went.  

As you request:




> See this is another example of people over reacting and NOT thinking.   The problem of Chytrid is not because of people raising and keeping  amphibians.  The fungus is present every world in the world and has been  probably for centuries.
> 
> John if you would like I wrote scientific review article over_  Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis._ It's long, but I assure you I did an  excellent job on it and have a full page of around 15-20 references  that I used.  Let me know, because maybe it could be posted under a link  or something.


If you wrote a scientific review, then you would not have made that mistake regarding the origin and time span of chytrid fungus infection.  The earliest known museum specimens found to be infected were Xenopus originating in Africa. 

Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus. [Emerg Infect Dis. 2004] - PubMed result




> *If a ban goes into place will they be required to  give up our names and have our animals destroyed while everyone else  keeps theirs because they don't know about them? I am second guessing  registering any more.*


No one is coming after your frogs.  There is no ban being proposed.  Read the rule change proposed.  It is a chytrid testing requirement for those that ship frogs across state lines and into the country.  That is it.  The test is cheap, and can be done by a third party lab.




> I  think the press release makes a good point - when have you known  legislators to care enough to fairly regulate for a topic like this of  marginal voting consequence?  Easier to ban outright.


And a ban is not even remotely what is occurring 




> Add in the detrimental effect of a token few zealots with big funding  backing them and things like the California Ambystomid Ban and the  Washington State Invasive Aquatic Species Ban happen.


CA has major problems with invasive species.  Banning species that if released (and several have) that can harm native populations is reasonable.  Same with Washington State.  Bullfrogs.  All I need to say about the problems with that state.

I will need to check the CA laws, I know Axolotls are banned because if introduced you get a 14 inch long voracious salamander lava that can easily survive in the state and eat native amphibian populations out of existence.  

Though other ambystomids as far as I know can still be used for Bait.




> Seriously, the problem with groups like Defenders of Wildlife, they  don't see the benefit of captive breeding programs. I would like to see  zoos and other serious amphibian hobbyists get together and work on  saving these animals.


These rules will actually economically encourage local captive breeding.  No consumer wants a chance to have the animal they ship in infected with chytrid, and it is much easier to breed your stock and sell off the clean animals than have to continually test wild caught specimens.




> Terry, i could not agree more. If I could figure out a way to  convince the herpetologists and zoos once and for all that there are a  good many "amatures" around doing real work with these animals that is  just as valid as the work they are doing, I would. I feel this gap will  ultimately doom the species the "big" budgets ignore.
> 
> The sheer pettiness of the scientific community and the zealots' lobby  powers will ultimately be the downfall of us all.


This is personally offensive to me as well as ignorant, so I will keep the tone of the original.

What pettiness?  The idea that  we, the people who usually spend our  entire lives as hobbyists and then  go to school for 9-12 years  (depending on program) and then study  amphibians professionally might  know what we are talking about a tad  better than someone who keeps a  few Pyxicephalus or Bombina? 

 That  people do not even take the time to read the rules proposed by the  FWS  before spouting off is mind blowing.  The rule being proposed is  in  principle the same thing done with food animals.  You know that FDA   inspection stamp on the packages of meat you buy?  It is pretty much   like that. I suppose the epidemiologists, vets, and agricultural   scientists who contribute to this form of regulation are being petty,   and think themselves more knowledgeable than those who raise cows as   pets who may be hampered if old Betsy dies and they want to take the   meat to market without it being inspected first.  

Who on here has the resources required to breed say...  Massive  numbers of Rana muscosa?  Do you have environmental growth  chambers and  other apparati used to induce reproduction?  Do you know  how to perform  artificial fertilization with frogs?

Do you do research into the  underlying causes of amphibian declines so  that captive bred specimens  can be re-released?

What percentage of animals bred by hobbyists  would do anything but go  to other hobbyists?  Practically none.  The  only successful population  reintroduction programs I have ever heard of  have been done by  professionals.  Unless there is a group of hobbyists  raising condors or  whooping cranes I dont know of.  As a matter of fact  AZGF and the  Phoenix Zoo (along with the Fort Worth Zoo) are doing a  very good job  breeding large numbers of Lithobates chiricahuensis.  It  is  professionals keeping amphibian species such as the entire genus   Atelopus from being eaten alive by Chytrid Fungus, not hobbyists.  

Hobbyists do an excellent job developing ways to raise small numbers of amphibians in an inexpensive manner and getting finicky species to breed.  They dont however have the facilities to properly do a captive breeding program.  Those that do can properly be classified as professionals and typically have decades of experience and/or formal education and training.  Just think about what doing vet treatment for all of those animals requires.  If your colony comes down with red-leg you have to have baytril on hand which is script only.  If not you have to resort to salt baths.  You have to have quarantine space etc.

To set up breeding facilities for Booroolong Frogs took tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in initial investment.  



> Well  this is the first time I read something like this and I see alot of  good points but ima put it like this; as with anything else they ban or  make illegal people are still going to find a way to do it no matter  what only to get rid of it years later. For example marijuana is illegal  yet in some state its becoming legal..why?Ive witnessed first hand what  it could do to your brain an ima be honest I use to smoke it but not no  more. Anyway to pass this (in my opinion) is a waste of time. Im upfor  making the world better but some things are pointless unless they really  tend to enforce this to the full extent.


Making something illegal cannot stop it completely, but it can stop large scale movements.  Someone shipping a friend their ceratophrys tadpoles is a far cry from the mass shipment of bullfrogs done by Carolina Biological Supply, or commercial shipment of frog legs from Paraguay or domestic bullfrog farms.  



> As I am on my phone I cannot provide a link, but if you are ignoring  this issue, have a go at the recent updates to New Mexico's amphibian  pet laws. Yes, you can get permits for some species if you do not mind  paying out a few grand. No, you can not yet permits as the bulk of  species are blanket banned...


My sarcasm was perfectly appropriate dealing with this, because even a cursory reading of the NM statute shows it is not true.

----------


## Kurt

> Why is it that herp hobbyists in general seldom actually read the text of rule changes or legislation before getting into an uproar about them?


I think its people in general. Just look at the big uproar over Healthcare reform. The right had a lot of people so scared over it. Did any one of these scared, paranoid people actually read it? Probably not, its too long to read, so they listened to the pundits and got angry.
I have read the proposal and I agree with it, so does Frank Indiviglio. Spot testing needs to be done on imports. Not every frog needs to be tested, just a few from each shipment. There is no need at this point to panic or get paranoid.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> I think its people in general. Just look at the big uproar over Healthcare reform. The right had a lot of people so scared over it. Did any one of these scared, paranoid people actually read it? Probably not, its too long to read, so they listened to the pundits and got angry.
> I have read the proposal and I agree with it, so does Frank Indiviglio. Spot testing needs to be done on imports. Not every frog needs to be tested, just a few from each shipment. There is no need at this point to panic or get paranoid.


I think the herp community is particularly bad though. Particularly the snake people.  There is a libertarian streak the size of Siberia, as angry as the Gaza Strip, and as short-sighted as a naked mole rat within that community.  They are ideologically opposed to any form of regulation whatsoever.  It is ridiculous.

----------


## John Clare

> There is a question of post-deletion which I see has happened with some of those by one named Crotalus (my roommate for the summer, and collaborator).  If the posts were deleted for TOS violations, accidentally or through computer glitch (board reverting to backups or something) then that is one thing.  Deleting them for the purposes of censoring is another and even if legal and within one's rights as admin/staff/mod is not morally OK.  It would be nice if that was clarified.  He is standing over my shoulder wondering where his posts went.


I deleted the posts between Crotalus and Paul (one of our moderators) because none of the posts were constructive or contributed anything to the discussion of the issue at hand.  There is no legal question and I have complete discretion to remove posts that are not even vaguely on topic - the posts were silly.

Regarding your other points - I actually agree with you for the most part, though frankly I think you give herpetologists and zoos far greater praise than they deserve.  Most zoo personnel know what they need to know to look after the animals in their care, and that's about it.  There are exceptions (I am friends with a few) but zoos pay very little and therefore rarely recruit people who are at the top of their game.

Regarding scientists, as a research scientist with a PhD, a considerable list of research publications in peer reviewed journals, as well as other publications outside of my research but related to amphibians, and having worked in several countries, I can tell you that again, most scientists have relatively little knowledge beyond their own research focus, and state bodies do not pay enough to have many knowledgeable and experienced scientists at their disposal.  Don't get me wrong, I truly wish you were correct in your view of scientists - that would be a nice country in which to live.

----------


## John Clare

One other point I would like to echo from previous posters.  Zoos and academics don't give much respect or credence to hobbyists.  I can understand their skepticism to a degree, but I know of several hobbyists who accomplish things such as breeding rare species first, finding range extensions for known species, etc.  Whether they like it or not, many hobbyists are treasure troves of breeding knowledge and experience that could be utilized for the benefit of rare species.  Thankfully, Amphibian Ark's director recognizes this, and through people like him we are starting to wake up so-called professionals that they have respect to give to hobbyists and a lot to learn from them too.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> I deleted the posts between Crotalus and Paul (one of our moderators)  because none of the posts were constructive or contributed anything to  the discussion of the issue at hand.  There is no legal question and I  have complete discretion to remove posts that are not even vaguely on  topic - the posts were silly.


If that is the case I will not press the matter.




> Regarding your other points - I actually agree with you for the most  part, though frankly I think you give herpetologists and zoos far  greater praise than they deserve.  Most zoo personnel know what they  need to know to look after the animals in their care, and that's about  it.  There are exceptions (I am friends with a few) but zoos pay very  little and therefore rarely recruit people who are at the top of their  game.


True enough.  However there is the matter of resources.  If you want to start up a large captive breeding colony of some ranid frog or hylid, It requires a significant investment in space, money etc.  A hobbyist cant do that.  A hobbyist may (and often do) figure out how to get animals breeding on a small scale (Rain chambers, photoperiod etc) but to pull a species back from the brink of extinction and not have them later succumb to inbreeding depression is another matter.  A lot of species also have issues when being re-released with disease.  This is much easier to control in a professional facility like the one I was not allowed to enter at the Fort Worth Zoo for fear of chytrid contamination (The on at the phoenix zoo is another matter  :Wink:  )

To really get something done on a large scale, you need technicians and other support personnel.  Vets on staff, whole nine yards.  An individual biologist may not be any more competent than a hobbyist at husbandry, but zoo facility has resources a hobbyist lacks-if only due to sheer monetary investment.




> Regarding scientists, as a research scientist with a PhD, a considerable  list of research publications in peer reviewed journals, as well as  other publications outside of my research but related to amphibians, and  having worked in several countries, I can tell you that again, most  scientists have relatively little knowledge beyond their own research  focus, and state bodies do not pay enough to have many knowledgeable and  experienced scientists at their disposal.  Don't get me wrong, I truly  wish you were correct in your view of scientists - that would be a nice  country in which to live.


Well that is why I was referring specifically to those who do research into amphibian declines and their causes.  State agencies dont do a very good job on the pure research end, and reports filed within them are a pain to get access to.  However someone at a university doing research on say... pesticide toxicity to amphibians is a good person to talk to.  A hobbyist setting up a breeding program will not know anything more than the general broad trends they read in the news and in trade mags.  They wont have access or the expertise to be able to find a good release site.  They cannot test for chytrid to example to see if their site is contaminated.  




> One other point I would like to echo from previous posters.  Zoos and  academics don't give much respect or credence to hobbyists


I have never experienced this, and if I have it does not rise to the level of pettyness.  I fully recognize the ability of a hobbyist to give us information on how to breed animals that no one in the scientific community really works with. The hobbyists that do that though as a proportion of the community are few and far between and those that can do it can hardly be considered amatures.

----------


## Johnny O. Farnen

While I will not buy into your sarcasm and arrogance, I will point out your quote referenced the wrong law for New Mexico. The current 2010 proposal as seen on the NMFG site explains the new permit system. This is being implemeted as we speak.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> While I will not buy into your sarcasm and arrogance, I will point out your quote referenced the wrong law for New Mexico. The current 2010 proposal as seen on the NMFG site explains the new permit system. This is being implemeted as we speak.


The 2010 version is not substantially different.  

The fees are as follows:

(a) class 1: importation of 1 to 5 animals 25.00 (b) class 2: importation of 6 to 99 animals 75.00 (c) class 3: importation of greater than 100 animals 300.00

Thousands of dollars yes... Of course.  You are only a full order of magnitude off.  If you are an importer you may have to eat the cost of disease testing, but having that testing done is perfectly reasonable.

----------


## Ribbirta

I do think that more hobbyists need to read more of the bills being proposed for themselves, but that is true about anything that is going on in the political world. And maybe not as many hobbyists are contributing to the conservation of a species as they think, but not everyone who enjoys keeping frogs and observing their antics needs to be a vet or a scientist. Some hobbyists my contribute to conservation of a local species and never be recognized for it. One of the best things one can do to conserve the local species is to have a fish free-suitable small pond for amphibians to breed in , and I know many people who do. 

Now regarding this bill, yes sometimes these things may start out as sensible proposals and turn into things like "draconian" bans, and yes most legislators don't understand the joy a herp hobbyist gets from caring for these critters and may not take it into consideration, but at this stage, testing IMPORTED animals for a devastating disease is not a bad idea. What all the concerned breeders and keepers need to do form this point is stay updated and know what is going on for themselves, and write letters and make cases as necessary. Right now the legislation you could say is equivilent to needing to prove that your pet pit bull is not a viscious killer before you give him to someone else, not banning them from being owned by responsible people. So take a deep breath. Ignore hot headed, arrogant sarcasm, and become and stay informed on the subject.

----------


## Deku

> Iratus, it's possible to discuss a topic, make a point, and even disagree without being offensive in the process.  Somehow 99.9% of the people on the forum manage that.  You too can accomplish this with little effort, and make your point.  In fact, you will be more persuasive if you do.


Agreed like that ol' saying says "you can catch more flies with  honey than with vinegar". I do see his point of view about the whole laws and such. I seem to agree with him because not only did he bring proof, he backs everything up. But trust me you catch m ore flies with honey than vinegar. Iam sure you can do it.

----------


## Kurt

Have you actually tried to catch flies with honey? Well have you? If so, were you successful?  :Big Grin:

----------


## Deku

> Have you actually tried to catch flies with honey? Well have you? If so, were you successful?


No. Lol I end up getting peanut butter since its my least favorite food and I put a slab on it on a paper towel. Leave it out. Flies get stuck in the tar, I get either a fly swatter, some bleach, or any chems, or just get fire and burn them up. xD Iam like the fly murderer. Lol its like HALP ME! A MAD MAN IS BURNING ME! AWRARARW D; Iam dying! I tried to eat some peanut butter and got stuck on it now Iam being murdarared. xD lolol

----------


## Kurt

OK that was disturbing.  :EEK!:

----------


## Deku

> OK that was disturbing.


LOL! Its not as disturbing as seeing a friend eating crickets, or other insects. I know this kid who does it. Its gross as hell. I dont understand how his girlfriend kisses him. xDDD I mean like he eats crickets for money. Lol. Oh and Its not as disturbing as me saying id use that peanut butter with the flies and make a sandwhich out of it and give it to a random person. Lol or a friend. xD hahaha then tell em what that sandwhich had and run. xD

----------


## Kurt

OK thats gross and I little bit disturbing. My appetite is ruined.

----------


## 1beataway

I, too, am rather disturbed and grossed out.

----------


## Deku

> OK thats gross and I little bit disturbing. My appetite is ruined.


Hahaha sorry. xDDD I thought it was funny. I think if I said this in some parts of asia I think people would seriously eat it. I think its because something about being part of a cuisine? I forget. Frogs wouldnt mind doing this. xD 
@onebeataway: sorry that was still funny. 

I made a gross funny. xD

----------


## Deku

> I, too, am rather disturbed and grossed out.


Your picture seriously scares the **** out of me. xD Don't blame me. Its just manequins like that are creepy. They look like they wanna steal your soul and eat your brains. BREINS! BRIENS! lolol

----------


## 1beataway

My avatar scares me too. Blame Kurt.

----------


## Iratus ranunculus

> Agreed like that ol' saying says "you can catch more flies with  honey than with vinegar". I do see his point of view about the whole laws and such. I seem to agree with him because not only did he bring proof, he backs everything up. But trust me you catch m ore flies with honey than vinegar. Iam sure you can do it.


Actually, that is not true.  You catch more flies with vinegar than honey.  That is why you set up trap jars for fruit flies using vinegar.




> _OK that was  disturbing._ 
>      LOL! Its not as disturbing as seeing  a friend eating crickets, or other insects. I know this kid who does  it. Its gross as hell. I dont understand how his girlfriend kisses him.  xDDD I mean like he eats crickets for money. Lol. Oh and Its not as  disturbing as me saying id use that peanut butter with the flies and  make a sandwhich out of it and give it to a random person. Lol or a  friend. xD hahaha then tell em what that sandwhich had and run. xD


I too sometimes eat insects...

----------


## John Clare

Yet again, the usual people make a serious thread into a joke.  Thank you for lowering the level of the forum.

----------


## Deku

> Yet again, the usual people make a serious thread into a joke.  Thank you for lowering the level of the forum.


Sorry john.  :Frown:  dont be mad at us.. D: Least we're not fighting? And on the plus side. No other forum is friendly oriented like this one enough where you can make a joke and not get chewed out?

----------


## Kurt

The forum has not been lowered in any way. Part of the friendliness of the forum is the ability to joke around. Its kind of how we bond to each other. We are serious when we need to be.

----------


## John Clare

You can do that in the off-topic section but joking on a press release is not alright.  All posts to the press release section are now moderated for anyone who doesn't have at least moderator status.

----------


## Deku

> You can do that in the off-topic section but joking on a press release is not alright.  All posts to the press release section are now moderated for anyone who doesn't have at least moderator status.


do you mean that no one except moderators will be able to post on this thread and any threads like this? D:

----------


## John Clare

> do you mean that no one except moderators will be able to post on this thread and any threads like this? D:


You can post but as you have just found out, you'll have to wait for one of us to go over the post and decide if it is an appropriate post for the Press Section.

----------


## Michael Novy

Guess we better start talking about this again..

----------


## Molch

> One other point I would like to echo from previous posters. Zoos and academics don't give much respect or credence to hobbyists. I can understand their skepticism to a degree, but I know of several hobbyists who accomplish things such as breeding rare species first, finding range extensions for known species, etc. Whether they like it or not, many hobbyists are treasure troves of breeding knowledge and experience that could be utilized for the benefit of rare species. Thankfully, Amphibian Ark's director recognizes this, and through people like him we are starting to wake up so-called professionals that they have respect to give to hobbyists and a lot to learn from them too.


 
as a scientist myself, I very much agree with this. There is, undoubtedly, an arrogance in the scientific community at large and a refusal to give due credit to the experience of people who have not gone to school for, like, ever, to get a degree. In some scientific fields scientists are catching on, however: here in Alaska, for example, there is now a much greater effort than ever to collaborate with Native Alaskans and draw on their vast traditional knowledge of animal ecology and behavior. Maybe the scientific herp community will someday value the vast amount of knowledge hobbyists bring to the subject...

----------

