Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Oophaga arborea
Oophaga granulifera
Oophaga histrionica
Oophaga lehmanni
Oophaga occultator
Oophaga pumilio
Oophaga speciosa
Oophaga sylvatica
Oophaga vicentei
User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Postby Sherman » Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:48 pm

Is the current method of importing phenotype specific O. pumilio acceptable?
What is Good?
What is Bad?

Please frame your responses based upon:
Impact to wild populations
&
Impact to the hobby.

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Philsuma » Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:14 pm

"Shopping list" selection is something very new to our hobby -only a couple years old. We used to try and apply a name to whatever came in, but now, with the realization that the profit margin of these guys can easily be increased 50-100%....comes a different marketing strategy.

my quick thoughts:

1. pumilio are listed on the IUCN Red List as 'least concern". Habitat destruction is probably only detrimental to the few smaller localized phenotypes / populations that are isolated. Typically, the prime real estate developed for tourism is beach front, like we see on Bastimentos. Usually those native frog populations have enough range to avoid extinction.

2. We are still going off the 'word' of the export / import chain which is, when all is said and done, 100% business oriented - hardly looking out for conservation or hard accurate scientific data such as GPS or careful selection / collection methods.

some thoughts.

goods
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby goods » Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:41 pm

Philsuma wrote:
1. pumilio are listed on the IUCN Red List as 'least concern". Habitat destruction is probably only detrimental to the few smaller localized phenotypes / populations that are isolated. Typically, the prime real estate developed for tourism is beach front, like we see on Bastimentos. Usually those native frog populations have enough range to avoid extinction.


They're considered least concern because that takes into account the species as a whole. That's not to say that there aren't individual populations in danger of being extirpated.

I'm currently doing work with a grad student who is using archipelago pumilio as part of an ecological study. She just recently returned from Panama, so we were talking about what she'd seen. When I told her that pumilio were typically one of the more expensive species in the hobby, she was amazed. Down there, they are considered trash frogs because they are so abundant and able to adapt to various habitats. The pumilio were much more abundant than other dendrobatids that occur sympatrically with them at sample sites.

With all that being said, I do think some populations are in danger and should probably never be collected unless they were part of a program similar to CRARC.
ZG

goods
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby goods » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:18 pm

I can't seem to edit the above but wanted to add that habitat degredation is probably a lesser threat due to the adaptivenessof the species.
ZG

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby RichFrye » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:51 pm

Panama imports as they stand do not comply with farm raising, quotas or protect breeding populations which can be over-collected. Pertaining to the wild populations there are indeed small populations which can be over harvested (harvesting is not supposed to be going on...) and small breeding populations can be wiped out. Only one reason a noted researcher (CVLG) wanted secrecy, so they don't get wiped out...
Most of the above would be considered BAD for the wild.

Pertaining to the hobby;
Bad information from habitual players from all over the world exporting either frogs like robalo , which we know are in the wild[/i] , or , or they are really not robalo, and thus the hobby is getting bad info.
Bad info is BAD for the hobby.

So , my votes are ;
Bad for the wild.
Bad for the hobby.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby RichFrye » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:00 am

Here's another tid-bit.
When new imports are coming in and cute little names like Melchi, Nicky, etc. are being used to sell them, check to see who actually first used the name (the person, many times a researcher who found them in the first place) and then ask them this;
"How would you know you have an 'insert cute name here' , when the researcher has not released to locale data on 'inserts' ?"
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Sherman » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:53 pm

Panamanian Oophaga pumilio Importation

I would like to preface this by stating that I am of no real consequence to the worlds of science, conservation or the hobby. I am simply an everyday nobody with an acute admiration for Mother Nature. In fact, I am part of the problem. I actively purchase captive born offspring from these imported animals. My purchases contribute to driving the engine forward. I am neither claiming a “holier than thou” position, nor do I look down on, or feel I am better than anyone involved.

If what I write upsets you, take a look at what motivates you in this hobby. I assure you that I have no personal agenda or vendetta against anyone in particular. These issues are much larger than any individual.

I am fortunate enough to have spent some time with the late Chris van der Lingen, both here in the United States and in Central America. He impressed me with his knowledge of and respect for Oophaga pumilio. My interactions with him have certainly influenced my thoughts and opinions on this subject.

Some of the goals of Chris’s project (Panama Pumilio Protection Project) were to collect information about populations that exist in nature, and protect to them enlisting the help of local landowners. He was able to show us locations in and around the Bocas del Toro area that contained distinct O. pumilio populations. He had special concerns for some individual populations and asked us not to “make photos” in these locations. At the very least, he asked that we not share them immediately upon our return. This was done in an effort to prevent these locations from becoming public knowledge as a result of the GPS units in our cameras. Even the names of these places were obscured to hinder others from finding them. These efforts were made to prevent smugglers & exporters from extirpating these populations, which Chris believed to be a very real and immediate threat to these animals. He had a casual stance on other populations. Those that had a broad range and booming population were of less concern to him. (Don’t read that as that he did not care about them!) There are likely many isolated populations that have yet to be discovered. When we lost Chris van der Lingen, the world lost a wealth of knowledge about individual O. pumilio populations in the wild. The frogs lost one of their strongest guardians.

I care more about O. pumilio in the wild than I do about our privilege to keep them. I have not seen convincing evidence that the hobby can successfully maintain healthy captive populations over long periods of time. I have no doubt that it is within our abilities if we all work together, but I feel that we do not have a strong enough track record to accept the loss of any wild population, especially by our own hands.

No frog, in any vivarium, of any size, will ever compare to experiencing these frogs in the wild. If you have not had the opportunity, I encourage you to do so. What a wonderful and memorable experience you will have. If this is out of your reach, then be sure to at least go outside and marvel at the wealth of life that is available in your area. It is probably closer than you think. If you reside in an urban sprawl then get out of the city for a day; Find nature. This is good for the soul and gives perspective. Remember why we enjoy this. This hobby should inspire us to maintain the wild places that are left, not strip them clean to be displayed in glass boxes.

We do not conserve. We consume.

We all take from nature to fill our needs. This process is not inherently a bad thing. Sustainable harvest creates economic incentive for continued production of that product. This has a side effect of maintaining the system that allows the production. When our greed and desire for these things exceeds sustainability, we begin to lose the very thing that we desire.

How important is it for us to have these animals? Why do we need all of them? Are they so important that we are willing to turn a blind eye to the process of how we get them? Ego? Status? Being the first? Belonging to the “in the know” group? What drives the “got to have them all” aspect? (These are deep, personal and mostly rhetorical questions that I have a hard time with myself.)

I think deep down the people that flock to these imports know that something is slightly off and that they can be done better. There is a certain clandestine behavior, (wink-wink; if you know where to look; lol) which makes me believe there is some level of shame involved. There is also a level of avoidance when questioned about these imports. Conversations get side tracked, in effect shutting down the communication, without really answering anything. In the end the desire to obtain this beautiful creature seems to trump all else.

There is an enormous lack of evidence to support the existence of any farms that breed O. pumilio in Panama. There are reports of holding facilities, but no farms. CITES paperwork states that the exported animals are farmed. Listing these animals with the accurate wild collected label would require studies showing that the collection of these animals would not negatively effect the wild populations. The farmed label is misleading at best; It is a violation of the CITES treaty at worst.

CITES and Panama may very well view O. pumilio as a whole and not think too much about the export of a “least concern” species. They may also not take into account the individual populations that are susceptible to over collection. This may contribute to the lack of any impact study requirements that would otherwise be mandated. As a well-informed hobby, it is our responsibility to take these things into consideration. We know better, and can do better.

Importers and exporters run a business. I do not fault them for making money, or supplying what is in obvious demand. They are not in the conservation business. It is not their job to save these frogs and they should not be tasked with that responsibility. It is their business to move these frogs on our behest. I do not want to stop this from happening. I just want it to be done better. The current system is neither good for the hobby, as that it does not supply repeatable, site-specific animals nor is it good for wild populations, as that it does not safeguard any of them. It is currently only good for egos and economies. Lets change this.

I would like to know the methods behind these “shopping list” imports.
(Be mindful that these are not accusations, only questions.)

~What steps are being taken to secure these collection sites for the future?

~ Will someone describe the collection process?
    -Are photos shown until someone knows where that frog can be found?
    (In sad irony, I assume C.v.d.L.’s book is used for this)
    -Who actually does the collecting of these frogs?
    -Are these frogs being collected with the permission of the landowners?
    -Is there any concern for quantities taken/left behind?

~What assurance is there that all of the animals labeled as a specific locality are from one population or collection site?
    -Perhaps a collector traveled to two (or more) different, isolated populations to obtain phenotypically similar frogs.
    *This scenario would exclude a locality from any meaningful breeding project.

~ What assurance is there that a locality from one importation will remain the same on successive imports?
    -Animals can be collected from one population for the first import, but collected from a different population for the next.
    *This scenario inhibits like localities from being bred together.

I think that these are important questions that, if answered, would clear up a lot of gray surrounding these imports.

Populations can contain many different phenotypes. Different populations can contain similar phenotypes. Unless there is evidence that collection locations are accurate and remain consistent over time, we are still forced to separate “locality” and import year, failing to achieve a reasonable founding stock to properly manage.

Furthermore, multiple “localities” can be collected from the same site, and be needlessly divided based on visual differences to fit particular locality needs.

These questions left unanswered, make managing these populations immensely difficult. Without an effective registry to manage these imports, that people actually use, these lines may be lost to confusion and mismanagement. If the definition of “Mutt Frog” is a frog with unclear origins, than some of these imports come close to fitting the bill.

These frogs are not locality specific. At the best they are phenotype specific. There are photos posted and consensuses built, but without clear collection data, they are just beautiful frogs that look like “_______”, backed up by the word of financially invested parties.

The physical locations of some of these “localities” have never been made public. No one in the business knows where these places are. Claims that frogs are from these undisclosed locations cannot be proven, even if the frogs are serendipitously from these locations. These names can only be used as a means to brand these frogs.

I am not kicking the importers and exporters, but there must be a more transparent method to do this. Please forgive my resistance to trusting any party 100% without some substantiating evidence, especially when money is involved.

There is clearly a desire for exporters/importers to give the hobby what it wants. They have changed from supplying O. pumilio to finding specific types of O. pumilio. Let’s just raise the bar a little more. We are almost there! There have been great strides in the way that these animals are maintained during this process and survivability has increased. The target audience has shifted from impulse buyers and wholesalers to experienced keepers. These are all good things and signs that change can be made. I hope that these trends continue. Once we adjust and understand how these animals are collected, we can begin to enjoy them more, and bicker less.

What it boils down to for me is: Small isolated populations are susceptible to over collection for the hobby. The hobby has specifically avoided putting together a comprehensive map of O. pumilio color forms for this very reason. A road map to color forms would make it too easy for smugglers and exporters to find these isolated populations and exploit them out of existence. Researchers have specifically omitted locality information and obscured names of locations to prevent this type of export pressure. Lets not disregard these things; Lets honor them.

These import “localities” are subjective and based on looks alone in the absence of collection data. Many of these locations have similar and variable phenotypes. You cannot determine the collection site by looking at a frog. Therefore, if you do not know exactly where a frog is from, then you cannot state that it is harvested from a sustainable population. Without some form of oversight or study, you cannot claim any population can sustain harvest.

There are no safeguards in place, as it stands now, to prevent the extirpation of isolated populations caused by collection for the pet trade.

This hobby constantly talks of conservation, and holds it in high regard. We collectively vote with our dollars (and Euros). These imports are not conservation in any way, shape or form. They are consumption. Flocking to these imports each time they come in is stating that the status quo is fine. We are rewarding them for a job that has no conservation value or safeguards. Excuses like “Everyone else is doing it.” and “If not me, than someone else.” are simply not good enough anymore. These targeted import pose an ever-increasing risk to these smaller, not yet in the hobby, populations.

We may have to not buy new frogs for a while to make this right. (A man can dream, right?) We will be fine and the frogs will be better for it. We can take all the money we save on caging and supplies and put it toward a system that gets it right. Bottom line –money talks, and we can use our money to make a difference that positively affects the hobby and wild populations.

A starting population of 500 is the generic benchmark of a sustainable, managed population right? Does this hold true for O. pumilio?

How may animals come in from each locality on these current imports? Some of these numbers are quite low. If we continue to separate “locality” and import years from each other, how are we ever going to reach sustainable and manageable captive populations? Instead we will continually grow the number of small, non-compatible populations in our charge. It will become increasingly difficult to keep track of what is happening. Lines will be lost; others will suffer from genetic bottlenecking. The current path does not lead to healthy captive populations.

O. pumilio are adaptable and thrive in disturbed habitat. That makes them much easier to “farm” than many species. I do not think that something as elaborate as cages would be required to create a more accurate use of the term “farmed”. I think areas of land set aside for the purpose of cultivating thriving populations of O. pumilio would be a vast improvement from what is currently being done.

O. pumilio offer us a unique opportunity to work with many different populations in one highly concentrated area. If exporters could make arrangements with Panamanian landowners to protect sections of their land and actively assist the populations of O. pumilio, then the beginnings of a sustainably harvestable system would be in place. Many different Panamanians would stand to benefit from this arrangement. Due to the close proximity of different localities, these farms could operate around one exporter or export team. Landowners could be educated as to the value of these populations and instructed on ways to manage and protect them.

Rearing site availability has been shown to be a limiting factor for some populations. The addition of artificial phytotelemata could be used to help boost population levels to sustainably harvestable levels. This would allow export of animals with limited risk of extirpation, as that landowners would have control over the quantities being removed.

The positive effects of these relationships would be felt from top to bottom. First, the frogs would have stewards looking out for them and their habitat. Local people would gain a new financially rewarding resource and have an incentive to keep these frogs healthy. Exporters would not have to find frogs; they would know exactly where to get them. Exact locality data! This would increase the value of these animals allowing a premium to be charged. This premium would offset the cost the exporter would likely have to pay farmers. These importations would be repeatable, with the same populations being collected each time. This would mean with each importation, our captive populations genetic diversity would grow. We would receive frogs with the best possible information and feel good knowing that the system is benefiting everyone.

I would like to see this started for at least one location. Red Frog Beach might make for a good pilot location. Chris van der Lingen was working with the builders there to maintain O. pumilio populations throughout their construction process. An effort to increase the frog population would benefit their tourist resort by ensuring they actually have red frogs. Selling off parts of a managed frog population would provide additional income and advertising. Then, if it proves effective, this could be used as a model for other localities to emulate. This could spread all over the Boca del Toro and beyond, providing us with all of the locality specific frogs our frog money can support. These locations could market themselves as tourist destinations. Trips to the different O. pumilio farms could be set up so that further revenue could be brought in to protect these habitats.

All right, before I get too deep into la-la-make-believe-land, I realize that it will be more difficult to make this happen than just punching away at my keyboard. I also know that the scenario I described would be fraught with hurdles and face opposition, which will be difficult to overcome. There could be farmers who would supplement their land with frogs from other areas, rendering the whole concept mute. Jealousy could arise amongst adjacent landowners and the politics that go with it. Politics! The value of this concept may not be recognized by some of the parties that would need to be involved. Etcetera.

These are just ideas. Without them, we are doomed to maintain what already is. I would love to find ways to make these ideas a reality. I would support anyone else’s efforts toward similar goals, and by that I mean financially or with real world effort. I would like to see us, as “the hobby”, collectively work toward the common goals of well-managed captive populations, habitat protection and just in case we screw up, a sustainable source for these wonderful little creatures.

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby RichFrye » Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:42 pm

I would agree with most all of your great post Chris.
I would however like to add a bit. The Panama pums are actually still very much at impulse buy prices and are being snagged by a lot of inexperienced froggers (although many may not consider themselves inexperienced) .
The reason that thousands come in but the next year you only see hundreds, or less, is largely due to this.
The impulse buyers don't give two hoots about locale info, believe everything they are told, don't know any better, and/or any mix of a number of other factors.
Unfortunately when you are selling a bunch of inexpensive frogs to people who will patronize anybody... to get what they want, you will not see the Colombian business man who was the high bidder on selling the animals change his stripes unless there is money to be made.
You are seeing a little bit more info (is it good info???) tagged onto these frogs because they will make a little more $. There is a cap at which people stop buying large numbers of pums from Panama , and they have just about reached it. There is no monetary incentive to do more when people are buying the BS from the jungle.


If there is a philanthropic multi-millionaire out there that has enough money to pay more for the rights to export than the current foreign business man has, and that philanthropist can fund a bunch of researchers we could actually get some great stuff done...all it takes is a crap load of money.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Philsuma » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:14 pm

Excellent post Chris !

Some thoughts...

The MAIN way to influence anything in life, especially this 'luxury niche" hobby of ours, is through....wait for it....money.

We all agree that we want to conserve these wonderful creatures and advance the hobby in general - a two-pronged approach that will be mutually beneficial to all.

To influence the hobby, enhance conservation efforts and advance (better) the hobby, we need:

1. Awareness. without awareness, this forum for example, everything we say and do will either fall on deaf ears or never see fruition. Look in the mirror. If YOU are serious about the issues we are discussing then you must do your part. Be vocal. State your views and opinions....often ! I realize it's tough posting. It's not everyone's cup of tea and some people are downright phobic about it. I used to be the same way -afraid to post. Afraid of what people would think of me, my thoughts, my words, my grammar and syntax. Then a revelation hit me. The more I posted the less thin skinned I became. I guarentee it will work for you too.

2. Choices and how they 'push things'. Does coke 'push' Pepsi ? You bet it does. They compete for your hard earned $$. Not the most apt analogy for our purposes - conservation, but I think you get the point. That's the very mission statement of Dart Den .com. To advance the hobby and push, push, push. Never will we shirk from posting anything even remotely related to these animals and the hobby. The bad as well as the good will be found here. We will put all the cards on the table, and by doing so, arm you -the reading member of this forum, with the ALL the knowledge you can possible handle.

3.Choices for $$$ (NOT a forum, I ASSURE you). We (DD) don't make money for the hobby .Barely a cent. The animals make 90% of it. Accessories and housing, the other 10%. Currently there are no choices coming out of Panama. We all have one exporter to deal with and pretty much one importer. If there was a second choice, an alternate choice....would that competition drive the betterment, the advance of good things for the hobby ? I'd have to think so.

some thoughts.

User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Sherman » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:12 pm

Every thread deserves some eye candy.
In situ O. pumilio. Photo made on Isla Colon.
Image

User avatar
RichFrye
Senior Member
Posts: 4451
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:10 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby RichFrye » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:26 pm

That is a sweet pic.
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed tanks, there are no known benefits to the frogs with either.


If tone is more important to you than content, you are at the wrong place.

My new email address is rich.frye@icloud.com and new phone number is 773 577 3476

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Philsuma » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:09 pm

Sherman, kudos to you for going to Panama AND meeting CvDL !! I wish I could have made his acquaintance.

User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Sherman » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:52 pm

Phil,

Chris van der Lingen was an amazingly like-able guy. He was gentile, soft spoken, and a good sense of humor and a great smile. There was a tiny language barrier. He said things in a very litteral way. The way that some Europeans do; You "make" photographs, not take "them". If you think about it, there is no pre-existing photograph to be taken, it must be made. He was a fireman prior to his work in the Bocas, which shows that he was always a caring person, willing to give of himself.

He was doing good work down there. It is sad because I do not think anyone is picking up where he left off. It has been said by others and I believe it to be true: I do not think that "the hobby" recognizes what was lost when he passed. (F.Y.I. He didn't just make the pretty pictures.)

He died just days after we returned. It was crushing to hear the news. I just began to know someone that I considered a true role model, a hero if you will. I was sure that I would see him again. My copy of his morph guide is inscribed with "See you again in the Bocas". Sigh. A member of our trip and I were talking about going back to help him finish off his house on Colon. The two apartments set aside for researchers were far from completion. We were going to trade labor for frog time. We would have gotten the better deal.

Chris Sherman

Oh yeah, Panama was cool too.

User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio

Postby Sherman » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 pm

I really expected someone to chime in on the pro-import side of this.
There must be reasons that drive the purchase of these frogs without asking any questions.
Is it that most people have not given this subject a lot of thought?
When faced with this line of thought, do people just not care? :shock:
Is it the ability to "breed" these fresh imports and turn a buck motivation?

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Postby Philsuma » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:08 pm

I tried to find an applicable thread on 'breeding certain year imports with other year imports' and I came up with this thread. hope it helps, as there are some questions popping up about breeding strategies with different years, populations ect.

My opinion:

I would keep ALMOST all imported Panamanian Oophaga pumilio separated by importer and import year. In the absence of information, which is exactly what we have here - imports that are ,shall we say,LESS than forthcoming or trusting.

So, with that in mind, I would prepare breeding projects WITHIN that particular import year / population and not insert another animal into that group unless I was very close to 90% sure it was part of the same import or locale (admittedly very hard if not impossible).

As with ANY breeding project - "once done (progeny) CANNOT be undone". I would err on the side of caution and keep like imports together .People citing 'inbreeding' as a fear or reason to inject different animals into their breeding group ? I find that to be over-worrying of the highest degree. Inbreeding is pretty darn hard to manifest itself without years and years of breeding and 'breeding back'. I think most people use 'inbreeding' as an excuse to throw more animals into the mix or perhaps SELL more animals. It's a bugaboo, and used incorrectly most times.

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Postby Philsuma » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:41 pm

"Bottleneck".....lol.

A typical hobbyist 'bottleneck' wouldn't be able to be even reached for a decade. Most people keep their frog projects for 2.6 years on the average ( my guess) so a 'bottleneck" should never even be an issue.

Even keeping F1 and F2 back into the breeding population shouldn't be harsh. Think of tiny (by most animal standards) insular populations that interbreed for thousands of years - panamanian islands, veritable 'inland' islands in the Sipaliwini savannahs.

Some...

Thoughts....

User avatar
Sherman
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: New England

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Postby Sherman » Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:59 pm

This thread contains my views on Panamanian O. pumilio importation.

User avatar
Philsuma
Site Owner
Posts: 10494
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:10 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Contact:

Re: Phenotype specific O. pumilio importation

Postby Philsuma » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:33 am

On managing WC (farm raised) Oophaga pumilio 'Bastimentos' and CB progeny.

Like any other potential frog purchases - 'vote' with your wallet and a clear, informed head. While I always recommend patronizing a fellow hobbyist / breeder and obtaining CB animals, there may be an occasion where you obtain imported pumilio or their progeny

In this case 'Bastimentos' or 'Bastis'

In the absence of site data -which is the norm for imports, I would still manage them like any other imported pumilio - by company of import and year (or even season /month if you can) of import, and of course by phenotype colouration and perhaps spotting. Look at website pics, the lotters book, the CvdL book and especially the 'complete pumilio' book for similar pics.

I would then only breed them with similar looking pumilio and even attempt to obtain animals from a similar importer or import time frame.

Bear in mind what you are left with is never going to be 'site or locale specific'. You are only left with a group of animals that you must continue to portray and advertise as above. Not cemetary, not Salt Creek, Not RFB....just 'Bastimentos'.


Return to “Oophaga Genus”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests