Dendroboard banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,328 Posts
An extremely large percentage of those are farmed so it's not really an issue as far as I see it. Plus bullfrogs reproduce so well it's not like there is a problem of overharvest. I say have the "harvesters" come to the west of the mississippi where they are an extremely destructive introduced species and kill every single one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,318 Posts
It is my opinion that this post has the familiar stench of our buddy The Little Drummer Boy!
Frank is alright. I don't know if Frank remembers me or not, but he has a long background in both the reptile zoo field and the pet trade so he is simply providing the information as it comes out.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
An extremely large percentage of those are farmed so it's not really an issue as far as I see it. Plus bullfrogs reproduce so well it's not like there is a problem of overharvest. I say have the "harvesters" come to the west of the mississippi where they are an extremely destructive introduced species and kill every single one
Right, most harvested frogs are farm raised (although admittedly, I do not know the exact numbers). That said, however, there is argument to better regulate commercial frog farming operations because it is largely, to my understanding, due to commercial farming that the bullfrog has been introduced out west. There also is experimental evidence to suggest that farmed frogs do have chytrid often and are probably a more likely vector of the disease than others (such as the pet trade)

I do admit that I do not know the numbers as to what countries like France import nor where those frogs come from. If they do come from wild populations, I would ask if they are sustainably harvested (since amphibians can actually be sustainably harvested). I would be concerned if that were not the case. However, given the types of frogs that are ideal for harvest, it would seem more likely to me to use something like bullfrogs.

Bill, I think we should reserve judgement and let the case be made. I do agree that farming can result in negative consequences for amphibian populations, but I also think that we need to be clear how much of an impact it has from the harvest (if 1 billion frogs are harvested for the U.S. each year and of which 950 million are farmed, the impact to wild populations is obviously very low).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
I knew who you meant.. I just didn't want to see a "dog pile on the rabbit" phenomena with Frank.

Ed
I don't want it to turn into that either, but admittedly, I did notice the STF link on that page... I will reserve judgment, but given how we know STF likes to make claims without data, I can't help but wonder the influence.

Hence my asking for data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,318 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
Much better, thanks for that. I did a quick scan through looking for wild caught versus farming estimates, but it largely seems that those are not really compared, unless I missed something? I think that there really needs to be comparison between these two to see where efforts should be focused to reduce impacts to wild populations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,318 Posts
Much better, thanks for that. I did a quick scan through looking for wild caught versus farming estimates, but it largely seems that those are not really compared, unless I missed something? I think that there really needs to be comparison between these two to see where efforts should be focused to reduce impacts to wild populations.
I think one of the reasons we don't see good data is because globally American bullfrogs are farmed in multiple countries, are introduced into the wild in many other countries are harvested from the wild in those countries and are not regulated by CITES. If I remember correctly, this allows laundering of some species into the food trade as American bullfrogs so the total gets lumped together. The lack of any reporting on the actual species involved is why it is murky.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Hi All,

Thanks very much for your interest.

Perhaps I should have drawn greater attention to the report itself in the text of my article. I do provide a link to the 20 page report (Canapes to Extinction, July, 2011) upon which my article was based under "Further Reading"...please check it out when you have time.

Per the report, and I believe as I mentioned in the article, the vast majority of frogs exported from some countries are wild caught (i.e. over 2 billion from Indonesia) (Rana macrodon and 15 other species, listed in Footnote I, in the report);

American Bullfrogs are of course not in danger of disappearing; I mentioned the USA because we import a great many Asian species that are in trouble (pre-packaged, "non-bullfrog" legs can be seen at any number of markets here in NYC) , as well as Am Bullfrogs which were raised overseas (thus possibly introducing exotic diseases, etc.)...this despite the facts that frog farms are established in the Am Southeast.

To Ed and those who put in a good word for me, much thanks! Please let me know if you need any more info; I've spent a good deal of time working with turtles in NYC food markets, and was able to get some insights into the frog market while doing so...nothing earth shattering, but interesting, best, Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
An extremely large percentage of those are farmed so it's not really an issue as far as I see it. Plus bullfrogs reproduce so well it's not like there is a problem of overharvest. I say have the "harvesters" come to the west of the mississippi where they are an extremely destructive introduced species and kill every single one
Hi,

Am Bullfrogs are not the main concern, rather the 16 Asian species noted in th reports text, which is linked under "further reading"/..please see my earlier comment re the report's text, etc., thanks, best, Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Hi JP,

The text of the report upon which my article was based is linked under "further reading"..it is 20 pages long, may have some useful info for you.

Best, Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
I think one of the reasons we don't see good data is because globally American bullfrogs are farmed in multiple countries, are introduced into the wild in many other countries are harvested from the wild in those countries and are not regulated by CITES. If I remember correctly, this allows laundering of some species into the food trade as American bullfrogs so the total gets lumped together. The lack of any reporting on the actual species involved is why it is murky.

Ed
Agreed. Personally, I'd say we need those data before we take too much of a reactionary approach. It is certainly possible that we could have a Japanese whale situation and have legs sold as legal species when they actually are not.

It really is a catch 22 because the idea would be to get rid of wild caught stuff and then be all good with farmed stuff, but that allows those bullfrogs to be invasive in areas where they've been introduced. I would say that we actually do want those to continually be collected. I could actually see a situation where some wild populations hurt if a blanket ban happened because bullfrogs are invasive. I'd say that the best option would be to probably allow for collection, but require that the frogs harvested be identifiable (as opposed to the already skinned legs).

Since such regulation would likely be ineffective in third-world countries, it'd be the onus of countries demanding harvested frogs to require that they be identifiable. That may be more likely a scenario to play out, I'd say.

One thing I will say about the DoW PDF is that it does show a little bit of bias. I noticed that they classified a number of species as potentially invasive, which included auratus. I don't think that auratus could every really be considered invasive. Invasive is associated with a negative impact (typically economic). It could be considered non-native, but I don't think that it has the fecundity, broad dietary preferences, competitive ability, or generalized habitat preferences to actually make a significant impact, whether economic or biological, on a system which it is introduced in. I mean, even in Hawaii, they're not really doing any harm that I know of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Hi,

Tough, complicated problems; unfortunately, the 16 or so frogs mentioned in the report were denied CITES protection, and collection is not regulated within their home ranges.

As you say, enforcement would be next to impossible in countries of origin; forcing importing countries to ID species etc would help, but collection methods within home ranges would likely affect rare/non-target species. Frogs are worth very little, individually, to collectors; no real impetus to avoid affecting other species and habitat.

I'm guessing that leaf-litter communities in Hawaii are affected by poison frogs, hard to say what that means and doubtful if anything will be documented in the near future, but the complexity and long range affects of any change are mind-boggling (to me, anyway!); invert field studies bring this into sharp focus. Of course, some intro's seem to be useful, i.e. honeybees in the USA, and no real way to "get back to natural situation" in most places; putting out fires is all we can do.,

best, Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
I'm guessing that leaf-litter communities in Hawaii are affected by poison frogs, hard to say what that means and doubtful if anything will be documented in the near future, but the complexity and long range affects of any change are mind-boggling (to me, anyway!); invert field studies bring this into sharp focus. Of course, some intro's seem to be useful, i.e. honeybees in the USA, and no real way to "get back to natural situation" in most places; putting out fires is all we can do.,
I am guessing that there is some impact, but as I understand it, auratus are not incredibly dense on the Hawaiian islands where they do occur. And given that they lack predators or anything really to control them there, they do have opportunity to greatly increase. I would guess there are other controls out there keeping them at minimal densities.

That said, other introductions like honey bees, arguably, have had an impact, but because the positive economic consequences outweigh the negative environmental impacts (pheasants are another example).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
As Eric Pianaka says ( a fromer herpitologist) if you want to restore the world environment and keep it clean you would have to destory 90% of the world human population (he thinks natural anwsers would be the best like disease and so fourth) and this would solve that problem there and i couldnt agree with this guy anymore.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top