I've started to research the proposed USF&WS rule change for all amphibians:



"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."



Source: View Rule Change



The emphasis in bold is mine.



I've emphasized the most important aspects of this rule change in bold. Let's analyse what the bold parts mean to amphibian hobbyists:



1. "add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act" means 2. "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"



Something is missing... ah yes, "unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus)".



This raises a lot of questions: 1. Who qualifies for certification? 2. Who will perform the certification? 3. How will the certification be conducted? 4. How much will it cost? 5. How long will it take? 6. How often does it have to be done? 7. Where will the certification take place?



Here's some information that may be of use in fighting this proposed rule change:



"Trade and transport of amphibians by zoos also is set to increase in direct response to the emergence of Bd. The AmphibianConservation Action Plan (ACAP, amphibia web.org/declines/acap.pdf) specifically calls for captive breeding programs targeted at species that are at high risk of extinction in the wild due to chytridiomycosis, habitat destruction, and other threats. In response to this call, the Amphibian Ark was formed tomobilize zoos internationally to develop ex situ captive breeding programmes. It is generally recognized that captive breedingwithin native species ranges is, to a large extent, logistically impossible to implement, maintain, and biosecure. Instead, regional centers are required that, as with Xenopus, concentrate captive breeding capacity, which is a fundamental component of the Amphibian Ark program. We agree that quarantine procedures need to be set in place, becausemany species coming into these breeding programs are or will be affected by infectious diseases, and those already present in zoos are at risk of cross-infection if biosecurity is not maintained (Walker et al., 2008). However, most accredited zoos have such procedures in place, although there is a need to upgrade and standardize. As well, synergies amongst components of the amphibian trade may actually benefit this global conservation effort. Many species in the pet trade are closely related both phylogenetically and ecologically to important target conservation species. These species can be used to train staff at regional centers so that when target species are brought into captivity the likelihood of successful ex situ programs will improve. In cases where target species are in the pet trade, they may prove to be the best or only source of breeding stock. This is no small beer; most zoos have far better developed reptile husbandry and very few institutions boast of breeders and keepers who are specialized in amphibian care, health, and reproduction. Some zoos are already using amphibians purchased from the private sector to develop the skills necessary to implement the Amphibian Ark plans. From a conservation perspective, this is not the time to alienate the pet trade sector, which may be the most useful repository of captive breeding and husbandry know-how and arguably has the greatest success rate at breeding rare, difficult to keep, and difficult to breed species.



Given that the amphibian trade is already enormous in the United States, Asia, and Europe (Schlaepfer et al., 2005; Tyler et al., 2007) and the pet trade is rapidly emerging in Asia (Rowley et al., 2007), blanket bans and radical restrictions are going to be impossible to implement. Imposing trade restrictions will require substantial time and effort with no guarantee of success and may result in a substantial increase in unregulated trade. The better and more rapid option is to regulate trade for the control of the spread of infectious disease. Strategies for this are in place in most countries and should easily be modified for amphibians. For example, on Dominica, agricultural trade has already been modified to reduce the risk of transporting amphibians passively around the Lesser Antilles. Toward this, the Aquatic Animal Health Code of the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, or the OIE) has been amended this year to include both Bd and ranavirus and now includes recommendations for certifying disease status of countries and amphibian products. By using the WOAH guidelines, we believe that the risk of disease transport will be, to a great extent, eliminated. For certain cases (e.g., Madagascar), more stringent restrictions may be put in place. Along with trade regulations, we need to educate stakeholders in the amphibian trade about the risk of pathogens to wild populations and to their livelihoods. Many amphibian traders, notably those in the pet trade, currently feel alienated from zoos and the scientific community but would welcome the opportunity to increase their knowledge of infectious diseases and implement better practices. Our research has shown pet traders in the United Kingdom feel that there is a lack of available information regarding the risk of amphibian infectious disease; however, the majority of pet shop owners surveyed feel import regulations are not stringent enough!"



Source: www.savethefrogs.com/kerry-kriger/pdfs/Garner-2009-Reply-to-Kriger.pdf



The emphasis in bold is mine.



A typical ploy used by animal rights organizations is to lump the trade of all amphibians together, as if all amphibians are equally responsible for the spread of Chytrid Fungus. Combining Dart Frog data with Bull Frog data is a good example of the use of this tactic.



Stay Alert - Be Aware!

[ Show Entire Thread ]