One of the main arguments we heard with regards to Wisconsin's CR 25-092, native reptile and amphibian regulations, was that many of these changes were being proposed due to the spread of diseases affecting our native herptiles in the wild. When we look at N.R. 40, the state of Wisconsin's Invasive Species rule, there were quite a few of them that were listed as either "restricted" or "prohibited".

--Frog virus 3 (FV3, a ranavirus)
Ophidiomyces ophidiicola (Fungus that causes snake fungal disease [SFD])
-Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd or amphibian chytrid fungus)
-Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal or salamander chytrid fungus)
-Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV, a ranavirus)
-Bohle iridovirus (BIV, a ranavirus)
-Raillietiella orientalis (Invasive snake lungworm)

At first glance, that is quite a few of them. Throughout the rule-making process, and in the rule's documents, are numerous places where disease concerns were cited. For example:

"For all other amphibian and reptile species, the department is proposing 24-hour possession rather than possession for an unlimited amount of time. This would reduce the many disease concerns that exist from citizens collecting and keeping native amphibians/reptiles as pets, but still allow for the animals to be collected temporarily (children collecting frogs on a lake, an individual collecting a snake to show a friend, parents collecting a salamander from their window well to show their children, etc.)."

However, the WDNR has not cited any studies or other scientific evidence showing how disease spread can be prevented if an animal is only kept in captivity for 24 hours or less. What about 24 1/2 hours? Or 72 hours? Someone could take a bucket-full of salamanders caught from one county, and still transport them three counties over and spread any potential diseases they may have been carrying, as long as it is done in less than 24 hours. Makes total logical sense.
WDNR has also stated during the rulemaking process that there have been many people releasing captively held pet native amphibians and reptiles "years later", but, as shown in our 25 year history into the number of native herptile possession citations and violations, there is really not the evidence which supports this.

Similarly, proposed changes to Maryland's native herptile regulations cite similar concerns relating to diseases.
"How does the DNR expect these changes to benefit reptile and amphibian conservation?
The proposed changes will conserve reptile and amphibian populations by keeping wild animals in the wild, which will improve population resilience and reduce risk of disease transfer. Changes will also reduce commodification of native wildlife and improve the ability of the Natural Resources Police to enforce regulations."

But is such a drastic approach really necessary? Let's examine PARC's (Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation) own Model Regulations for Native Herptiles on the PARC website and examine what those say regarding diseases:

f. Specimens held in captivity for any length of time
should not be released into the wild. The exception
would be specimens temporarily held in the field
for photographs or identification.
e. Develop guidelines for, and require the use of, aseptic field techniques (aquatic and terrestrial) to prevent the spread of pathogens between wild populations (e.g. Declining Amphibians Population Task Force Field Techniques).
g. Live aquatic herpetofauna collected for fishing bait
should be used at the body of water where captured,
and not transported alive to another body of water.
Unused live bait should be humanely euthanized
or given to another angler fishing at that site.

It would require some changes to be made, but the keeping and possession of native herpetofauna can absolutely continue despite these disease concerns in the wild. Promoting captive-bred animals only, strict no-release provisions, the requirements of a CVI (or Certificate of Veterinary Inspection) prior to release, requiring proper quarantine and husbandry of captive animals, or other departmental oversight and/or approvals on a case-by-case basis can all be ways of addressing these disease concerns while also enabling responsible herpetoculture to continue.
The full link to the PARC recommendations can be found here:

https://parcplace.org/.../uploads/2017/08/HERPETOFAUNAR.pdf

So are outright bans due to wildlife disease concerns really necessary? No, not really.