Originally Posted by Tijl
But that is exactly my problem.
Even paper that makes them 'legal' is ethicly very very VERY questionable imo.
Its impossible to find out if those papers and quota's are not bribed, influenced, corrupted, laundred,.. This can and will happen already in the native country if possible for the exporters. It is something I've seen and heard many times before. It's a simple as money makes the world go round..
That's why I gave the example of the pumilio. Every single 'legally' pumilio exported out of Panama came from a farm. But the farm where they were 'bred' was closed down a few years later since they found out the frogs wernt bred at all.. It was all frogs collected in the wild.
The buisnessmodel of 'farming' pumilio still happens to this day.
Now hundreds pumilio and other oophaga enter Europe as 'bred in the US'. Probably it's also the other way around, just like the 'blue Galactontus'. We all know this is BS and plain laundrying.. Does this stop annyone from keeping Pumilio? There is absolutely no differnce with the galactonotus imo..
Another example to question ethical leaglity is who decided the quotas of collecting Tinctorius in Suriname the last decades? As far I understand there was never much real research done whatsoever to decide what were healthy numbers to catch without hurting the populations.
I'm pretty sure this is how it goes for every form of exotic animal keeping/trade in the world..
Tijl, I think I agree with you on all this. Still, though, can't we make some distinction between the frogs that were exported based on what you describe here, and frogs that left the country stuffed in a soda bottle in someone's underpants? Isn't one less bad than the other?