Posts: 535
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2011
sidney ferrell Wrote:cbreon Wrote:I am pretty sure those came in as Bahia Grande....'Boca Grande'? and let the management difficulties begin....
The 2-3 days after the import there was chiriqui grande, bahia grande, salt creek, popa, and almirante for ~$75 each via SR, depending on who you talked to down in FL. These were the leftovers after the pre-involved parties got first pick, I don't know what is left but on Friday those were apparently all available.
Anybody have pics of some of the lesser known imports that came in? Craig: dont you already know what all morphs came in? Last i heard you were trying to purchase some of these new imports through a frogger in the east coast? You are in PA right?
Sidney, a friend of mine who was part of the group involved contacted me about the lomas b/c he knew I have been looking for lomas for a little while. I decided to pass for multiple reasons. I have seen lists of what came in, but haven't seen anything other than the initial 5 pics.
Posts: 535
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2011
thedude Wrote:RanaVenenosa Wrote:This is the $20 million dollar ques - what documentation exists to say what part of the isle the frog was collected ?? ie "bahia" Cristobal... Popa is another convoluted isle of color morphs.
I ask this ques as constructive to the future pairing of these animals. I personally do not have any, but if a day ever came I was to buy some 2 years from now, what evidence will make them more than "Strictly 2012 Popa" ???
Hoping people who bought the frogs will comment w how they would represent the frogs if/when they have F1 for sale.
thx
Everyone that bought them think they are site specific so that's how they will be labeling them I'm sure. Whether or not there is any proof of that, and whether or not they are going to share that proof.
Until some better evidence is shown, everybody got 2012 "Lomas", "Esperanza", and "Salt Creeks" and they shouldn't be calling them 100% known locality anything until then. They are just like all the other imports of pumilio.
I will say this, the "Salt Creeks" definitely look like Salt Creeks, also known as Cayo Sinnombre according to Dendrobase.de. And I don't believe the old Salt creeks are the same, or if they are, the gene pool was small enough that very few phenotypes are being expressed in the captive population. But saying Patrick says they are the same as his is useless because he labeled them as several different things before "Salt Creek". Know why? NO DATA. But, if this hobby has to label based on phenotype, like we do with pumilio, I would agree they are "Salt Creeks"...just not 100% Salt Creeks.
I have no problem with anyone calling the 2012 SR 'salt creek's', 'lomas', etc...but to me they will always be part of another fr import and treated the same way we have treated others in the past. That is to say, that I will not mix 2012 SR Lomas with other lomas existing in the hobby, or salt creeks, etc and I don't beleive it should be generally acceptable for others to do so either. Enough of these animals came in that I don't beleive there is a need to mix them with other, pre-existing lines or imports. I think that is the appropriate way to manage these, another name for another import just so we can try to manage them the best way possible.
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
markpulawski Wrote:...same as said before... Rich's GPS frogs 100%...did he collect them and mark the spot himself? ...already written... So now we once again decide to question my word? Re-think this.
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
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
Sidney, at least two of us have a simple question for you, before I post all the rest of your lies;
Sidney,
Do you NOW have arboreus as you told me via email only a few days ago, or are you lying about that also? Your posts here (to cover your ass against F+W) give the feeling that you think they are nice and don't have them, while the email (lots of other emails with what I'd consider even more 'questionable' frogs...but we all have these emails) tells me specifically that you do have wild caught , illegal arboreus. You brag and taunt me with pics.
Did you lie then, or now about arboreus?
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
Posts: 205
Threads: 17
Joined: Jan 2008
Just as a heads up, there were 11 (I believe) arborea collected legally and imported with CITES papers a while ago, and that was allowed only once. Most of that group is gone unfortunately. So everything else except those and their siblings (there weren't any to my knowledge) have either been smuggled or brought over from Europe (Sean Stewart has done that a couple times). I don't know if Sidney has them or not, but if he does I doubt they are part of the original 11 (again I believe it was 11).
Mark, I think all these frogs that came in are very nice looking and they would be great in anyone's frog room. I'm not saying you shouldn't be satisfied or that they aren't great frogs. All I'm saying is they shouldn't be labeled as known local or anything of the sort unless anyone has proof they are in some form or another. This doesn't even mean GPS or pictures to me. It just means the person who collected them is well known and trusted and has extensive knowledge of pumilio populations. So I'm sorry if it seems like everyone is hounding you about them, I think everyone is just looking out for the hobby.
Adam Hess
Posts: 205
Threads: 17
Joined: Jan 2008
cbreon Wrote:I have no problem with anyone calling the 2012 SR 'salt creek's', 'lomas', etc...but to me they will always be part of another fr import and treated the same way we have treated others in the past. That is to say, that I will not mix 2012 SR Lomas with other lomas existing in the hobby, or salt creeks, etc and I don't beleive it should be generally acceptable for others to do so either. Enough of these animals came in that I don't beleive there is a need to mix them with other, pre-existing lines or imports. I think that is the appropriate way to manage these, another name for another import just so we can try to manage them the best way possible.
Actually, this is like the thread I started on DB. In my opinion, these Lomas SHOULD be mixed with the old line because neither have data. The same could be said for any other "Farm Raised" pumilio that have come in. If they are labeled San Cristobal (not to be confused with mainland cristos) then breed them with other San Cristobals, as long as they have no data and look phenotypically similar. The reason I say this is because we don't have enough breeders in this hobby to keep every single import year going as it's own separate "morph". Instead of trying to keep them separate and having 5 different low genetic, less variable, "sub morphs" that may fall out of the hobby, we should have one line (or in this case 2 since Rich's would be a separate known local) with a lot of variation. So I actually have no problem with that either, as long as they are kept separate from ACTUAL known local frogs. This should be easy since they don't exist with these populations.
Sorry for the hijack
Adam Hess
Posts: 154
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
OK 1 more reply, no Rich I am not questioning your word, I don't know if you collected your frogs, we've never had that conversation, if you did great then you know and can say with absolute that yours are site specific. I was just saying in general unless you fall into the Mark P circumstances anything can be questioned, if you do then great I am happy for you.
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
thedude Wrote:Just as a heads up, there were 11 (I believe) arborea collected legally and imported with CITES papers a while ago, and that was allowed only once. Most of that group is gone unfortunately. So everything else except those and their siblings (there weren't any to my knowledge) have either been smuggled or brought over from Europe (Sean Stewart has done that a couple times). I don't know if Sidney has them or not, but if he does I doubt they are part of the original 11 (again I believe it was 11).
...
If you read the email I quoted you will see that Sidney says he has wild caught arboreus and he knows I will not want them bacause they are
" bad abd bad".
He has also admitted to (or lied about)
a bunch of other illegal frogs, but that will come out later this week.
Rich
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
Posts: 535
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2011
thedude Wrote:cbreon Wrote:I have no problem with anyone calling the 2012 SR 'salt creek's', 'lomas', etc...but to me they will always be part of another fr import and treated the same way we have treated others in the past. That is to say, that I will not mix 2012 SR Lomas with other lomas existing in the hobby, or salt creeks, etc and I don't beleive it should be generally acceptable for others to do so either. Enough of these animals came in that I don't beleive there is a need to mix them with other, pre-existing lines or imports. I think that is the appropriate way to manage these, another name for another import just so we can try to manage them the best way possible.
Actually, this is like the thread I started on DB. In my opinion, these Lomas SHOULD be mixed with the old line because neither have data. The same could be said for any other "Farm Raised" pumilio that have come in. If they are labeled San Cristobal (not to be confused with mainland cristos) then breed them with other San Cristobals, as long as they have no data and look phenotypically similar. The reason I say this is because we don't have enough breeders in this hobby to keep every single import year going as it's own separate "morph". Instead of trying to keep them separate and having 5 different low genetic, less variable, "sub morphs" that may fall out of the hobby, we should have one line (or in this case 2 since Rich's would be a separate known local) with a lot of variation. So I actually have no problem with that either, as long as they are kept separate from ACTUAL known local frogs. This should be easy since they don't exist with these populations.
Sorry for the hijack
I don't think this is a hijack, I think its pretty much on point with the conversation. You make some good points, but the picture I saw of the 2012 'salt creeks' look different from the existing line(s). The loma picture I saw looked quite different, to the point that they looked like they were from a different population. I agree that the existing lomas need some new blood but until I see some more pics I would be hesitant to agree with you. I will try to post the picks I have seen tonight so everyone can look and discuss more from there...
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
thedude Wrote:cbreon Wrote:I have no problem with anyone calling the 2012 SR 'salt creek's', 'lomas', etc...but to me they will always be part of another fr import and treated the same way we have treated others in the past. That is to say, that I will not mix 2012 SR Lomas with other lomas existing in the hobby, or salt creeks, etc and I don't beleive it should be generally acceptable for others to do so either. Enough of these animals came in that I don't beleive there is a need to mix them with other, pre-existing lines or imports. I think that is the appropriate way to manage these, another name for another import just so we can try to manage them the best way possible.
Actually, this is like the thread I started on DB. In my opinion, these Lomas SHOULD be mixed with the old line because neither have data. The same could be said for any other "Farm Raised" pumilio that have come in. If they are labeled San Cristobal (not to be confused with mainland cristos) then breed them with other San Cristobals, as long as they have no data and look phenotypically similar. The reason I say this is because we don't have enough breeders in this hobby to keep every single import year going as it's own separate "morph". Instead of trying to keep them separate and having 5 different low genetic, less variable, "sub morphs" that may fall out of the hobby, we should have one line (or in this case 2 since Rich's would be a separate known local) with a lot of variation. So I actually have no problem with that either, as long as they are kept separate from ACTUAL known local frogs. This should be easy since they don't exist with these populations.
Sorry for the hijack
No, it's best to er on the side of not mixing.
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
Posts: 205
Threads: 17
Joined: Jan 2008
RichFrye Wrote:If you read the email I quoted you will see that Sidney says he has wild caught arboreus and he knows I will not want them bacause they are
" bad abd bad".
He has also admitted to (or lied about)
a bunch of other illegal frogs, but that will come out later this week.
Rich
Sorry I must have missed that. Given that these are actually bred consistently in Europe, then what he has would've been smuggled. That is if he has them. I don't know him though so I have no idea on if he does or if he's lying.
Adam Hess
Posts: 205
Threads: 17
Joined: Jan 2008
cbreon Wrote:thedude Wrote:as long as they have no data and look phenotypically similar.
I don't think this is a hijack, I think its pretty much on point with the conversation. You make some good points, but the picture I saw of the 2012 'salt creeks' look different from the existing line(s). The loma picture I saw looked quite different, to the point that they looked like they were from a different population. I agree that the existing lomas need some new blood but until I see some more pics I would be hesitant to agree with you. I will try to post the picks I have seen tonight so everyone can look and discuss more from there...
I only saw one picture of the Lomas so I don't really know how similar they look. If you look at what I said in the above quote however you will see that we already agree  Also, I already said I don't believe the "old Salt Creeks/orange and green/cristobal" are the same as the new "salt creeks". It's early and I'm typing quick so I can't make sure everything I say is spot on!
Adam Hess
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
thedude Wrote:RichFrye Wrote:If you read the email I quoted you will see that Sidney says he has wild caught arboreus and he knows I will not want them bacause they are
" bad abd bad".
He has also admitted to (or lied about)
a bunch of other illegal frogs, but that will come out later this week.
Rich
... I don't know him though so I have no idea on if he does or if he's lying.
Sidney is either lying to me about having illegal wild caught arboreus, or he is lying to everyone esle to cover his ass against U.S. F+W. Either way, once again we catch Sidney in yet another of hundreds of lies.
In his rants here he has yet to address the question of which lie he has told involving these illegal frogs.
Sidney, any input here?
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
Posts: 154
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Damn I thought I was done, I did see 1 pic of a Loma and man was it stunning, the ones Pat got were very similar to what is here now..green frogs with blue undertones and a few small black spots. I have heard on Loma there are always a very few stunning individuals but most are understated green with blue undertone frogs. I did not get any, just passing on the info I received.
Posts: 535
Threads: 54
Joined: Jul 2011
The 'boca grande' have since changed to 'bahia grande,' glad to see they made the change. Still no pics from any of the people that got these imports?
Posts: 280
Threads: 24
Joined: Mar 2009
I contacted them about the mislabeling.
Later and Happy Frogging,
Jason Juchems
Posts: 514
Threads: 23
Joined: Feb 2012
They increased the price as well by $55.00 pair. Still a good price, though.
JJuchems Wrote:I contacted them about the mislabeling.
Posts: 154
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Salt Creek without a flash, pretty accurate depiction of the color
. ![[Image: 004-9.jpg]](http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp133/markpulawski/004-9.jpg)
Posts: 4,450
Threads: 398
Joined: Jun 2004
It has been exactly two weeks since Sidney Ferrell wanted time answer to the lies we've all brought up. No answers.
In that time I have not once been offered a payment plan nor given an exact number Sidney thinks he owes me.
Two full weeks.
I am out of town today for almost a week. I'm not posting the rest of what I have until I get back. I don't need Sidney time to waste any more of my free time than needed. More to come though.
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
Posts: 10,391
Threads: 871
Joined: Oct 2008
Rich,
Post everything directly related to your dealings with Sidney under his feedback thread, please.
|
