Group lobbying for possible Amphibian pet trade ban in US

[John]

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 Trade
• International Amphibian Charity Amphibian Ark's reading of the current stage of the Defenders of Wildlife lobby
• Dart Frog hobbyist uproar over the proposal
• Newt 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.

[SludgeMunkey]

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!

[John]

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.

[SludgeMunkey]

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

[tgampper]

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.

[SludgeMunkey]

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]

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]

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.