EDITORIAL March 1997
Trade in Dendrobatid frogs 
Towards the end of last year, Herpetological Review carried an interesting article on Dendrobatids and CITES by former BDG member Stefan Gorzula (Herp. Rev. 27: 116-123). Steve, as we know him, reviewed statistics on licensed imports and exports of Dendrobates and Phyllobates spp. between 1987 and 1993, using figures supplied by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) at Cambridge. The backdrop to these figures is a brief account of the views of those who argue for and against Dendrobatids being CITES-listed. This extends to some facts and figures about numbers of people who keep Dendrobatids, articles published on the subject and some financial statistics. The BDG newsletter has clearly been useful to Steve in compiling this information, for it is cited four times among the references.

Steve's article contains many interesting statistics. For example, four species (Dendrobates tinctorius, D. *pumilio, D. *auratus and D. *trivittatus) accounted for 94% of the trade in wild-caught animals identified by species. The countries with the highest detected exports over this period were Suriname (6,210) and Nicaragua (3,352). Suriname and Panama were the most consistent known exporters, with trade detected in every year. The Netherlands was a consistent (re-)exporter of Dendrobatids during this period (total 643 frogs), but of 63 shipments detected only eight were reported by the Netherlands to the WCMC, the others being identified by the importing country. Approximately 14% of all Dendrobatids traded were reported as captive-reared, but, as Steve notes in his article, "there is no evidence that any breeding stocks for eight of the species of Dendrobatid frogs that figured in the international trade in captive-reared specimens were ever imported legally to then on-range producer nations during the period 1987-1993".

After cross-referencing import and export licences, Steve concluded that the licensed trade in CITES-listed Dendrobatids over the seven-year period amounted to almost 16,000 frogs - a quantity which, as he put it, "would not have filled a large trash can".  Some of us take heart from the suggestion that Dendrobatids are not being harvested en masse for export, though we may have our doubts as to the real extent of the trade. It has been argued that some Dendrobatids are common enough to be exploited commercially and that this could generate a significant income for some of the less-wealthy exporting countries.  It is also said that wild populations are at much greater risk from loss of habitat than from collecting. Sustainable exploitation, so the argument goes, may even provide an income for the producing nation that justifies protection of the habitat on economic grounds, thereby aiding conservation.

Personally, I need to be convinced that deregulation would be beneficial.

Even though trade in Dendrobatids is not prohibited by the current CITES listing, the bureaucracy involved in obtaining permits may be sufficient to put off prospective traders. As things stand, anyone with a bona fide reason for wanting Dendrobatids - and this may amount to no more than a wish to keep and breed them - can get them. It seems to me that relaxing the controls on trade in exploitable wildlife is likely to result in an increase in what I refer to as speculative trade, i.e. collecting and packing of large numbers of animals with no specific destination in mind and with the sole aim of making a fast buck. Better by far, I would say, if those people who are fortunate enough to count these creatures among their wildlife can cash in through "eco-tourism" and controlled sales to people who are prepared to make the financial investment to go and get them.
Clive Cummins