x 643

Florida 3

What is BLUE CHAMELEON VENTURES?

Bill and Kathy Love operate the business based near

Ft. Myers in southwest Florida. We specialize

in providing quality photography for books, maga-

zines, calendars, web sites, signs, slideshows,

and all forms of commercial advertising. Our

area of expertise is herpetology - reptiles and am-

phibians, and also invertebrates. A huge stock of

color slides is available. Or, we'll be glad to dis-

cuss taking new shots of animals, displays, or

other subjects needed to illustrate your next

project.

Please call if we can help you with any photo needs.

Our slides have appeared in hundreds of publica-

tions over the past 17 years. Bill’s photos appear in

every issue of REPTILES magazine where he au-

thors a monthly question and answer column. He is

also a former partner of Glades Herp, Inc., a promi-

nent and respected breeder and supplier of

herpetofauna to zoos and collectors worldwide.

Other Aspects

We lead wildlife safaris to Madagascar, and also

captive breed many of the most beautiful spe-

cies of snakes and other herps. Please request

further information on both of these other as-

pects of our company.

NATURE

PHOTOGRAPHY

Tens of 1000’s of superb color

slides are available of reptiles,

amphibians and arachnids - all

aspects of their ecology, biol-

ogy, habitat, and captive main-

tenance and breeding. Query

us with your needs for use in

books, magazines, calenders,

as teaching/lecture aids, etc.

WORLD

ECO-TOURS

We offer guided adventure

tours/photo safaris to some

of the most unique and biologi-

cally interesting places on

Earth. Our specialty is the

unparalleled mini continent

of Madagascar. Contact us for

the brochures detailing our up-

coming “once-in-a-lifetime”

trips overseas.

HERPETOCULTURE

For over a decade, we’ve con-

centrated on selectively propa-

gating the most beautiful and

variable species in captivity.

Our emphasis has been on de-

fining and enhancing the color

and pattern traits that hold the

broadest appeal. Request our

annual breeder list.

A hungry Parson’s chameleon captures a

grasshopper with its long adhesive tongue.

wh x INE ssi BS

Matjaz Rojc and Michael Francis photograph-

ing a sleeping Leaftail Gecko on a recent tour.

Captive - bred hypomelanistic Honduran Milk

snake, a new inheritable trait that really glows!

ERRATUM SHEET (AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION VOL 1 NO. 1)

To increase the accuracy of the journal and reduce the number of errors a new policy is now in place. This policy

was not followed in the first issue due to time constraints. All authors will now receive galley proofs once their

article has been edited and the layout completed. These proofs will be reviewed one last time by the author(s).

All errors should be brought to the attention of the editor as soon as possible.

The following journal corrections should be noted.

1) Page 3. Masthead.

a) The premiere issue (Vol. 1 No. 1) are now $12 each.

b) Back issues are $9 each (exception, Vol. 1 No. 1).

2) Page 10. In the Key Words section the word Viridi_ should be spelled Viridis.

3) Page 16. Under the photo caption the word Plethedon should be spelled Plethodon.

4) Page 20. The third sentence of the body of the article should read “Inbreeding depression may adversely

affect small populations by unmasking recessive deleterious alleles and reducing heterozygosity.”

5) Pages 24-26. Column.

a) The personal communication on page 25 (Groombridge 1994) was not attributed to Dr. Brian

Groombridge of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, England.

b) The WCMC database, referred to in the column, is in fact the CITES database of trade records.

WCMC have developed and maintain it on behalf of the CITES Secretariat.

c) By comparing export records and import records, and checking against known countries of origin, it is

in fact possible to get some idea of the extent of misreporting.

The up-dated information for this particular article was provided by Brian Groombridge on November 8, 1996.

NOTE - The most up-to-date Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation instructions can always be found

at the Amphibian & Reptile Conservation website at: http://www.byu.edu/~arcon/

}

ihe RS ue

1h ea re

ata

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE

CONSERVATION

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY

Volume 1, No. 1, Fall 1996

FOUNDER

Craig Hassapakis

Editor and p

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation

ADVISORY BOARD

Allison (

Center for Reproductio

oological Park

ian Institution

Departm:

Villanova L

Joseph T. Collins

Natural History Musewm

University of Kansas

Cari Gans

rtment of Biology

ty of Michigan

Dep

Uni

Howard E. Lawler

Executy ctor, Bio:

Tucson, Arizona

Roy W. McDiarmid

National B:

A Mittermeier

reation International

Washington, DC

George B. Rabb

Chairman, IUCN, Species Survival Commission

President, Chicago Zoological Society

Hobart M, Smith

Department of Environmental, Population

and Organismic Biology

University of Colorado

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr.

Southeastern Biological Scie

National Biological

e Center

rvice

Lee A. Fitzgerald

Department of Biology

University of New Mexico

Steven D. Garber

Wildlife Biologist

John F. Kennedy International Airport

Julian C. Lee

Department of Biology

University of Miami

Joseph C. Mitchell

Department of Biology

University of Richmond

Henry R. Mushinaky

Department of Biology

University of South Florida

Chri

Center for Envi

pher J. Razworthy

ental Research and Conservation

mbia University

Nelson Jorge da Silva. Jr.

Centro de Estudos ¢ Pesquisas Biologicas

Universidade Catolica de Goias, Brazil

Andrew T. Storfer

Center far Ecology, E' ion and Behavior

University of Kentucky

Robert J. Wiese

Assistant Director, Conservation and Science

American Zoo and Aquarium Association

CONTRIBUTORS

Section Editor

Amphibian Ecology & Conservation

Jamie K. Reaser

Center for Conservation Biology

Stanford University

Columnist

Allen Salzbery

New York Turtle & Tortoise Society

Neic York, Neto York

Zoo Liaison

Frank L. Slavens

Curator of Reptiles

Woodland Park Zoological Gardens

Editorial Assistants

Guenevere Nelson-Melby

David D, Adam.

Art Directors

Carin Young

Samuel D, Ashley

Amy Stout

Computer Support

David J. Owens

Printed on recycled paper with soy based ink

On the Cover

A male Golden toad (Bufo periglenes) at the

Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, Costa Rica.

Sadly, there have been no confirmed sightings of

Golden toads seen since May of 1989, when a

single male was seen. No one knows why this

species disappeared from its pristine forest sur-

roundings, far from human activities.

Golden toad photographs generously donated

by Michael and Patricia Fogden, Natural His-

tory Photographers, Kinbuck, Dunblane,

Perthshire FK15 9JU, Scotland, UK. Tel/fax: +44

1786 822069.

Contents

Features

4 The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines

Jamie K. Reaser

9 Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas: A Brief History

David L. Reber and Allison Smith Reber

Scientific

15 Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Peaks of

Otter Salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) Populations

Joseph C. Mitchell, Jill. A. Wicknick, and Carl D. Anthony

Departments

20 Commentary

Population Biology and Herpetological Conservation:

A Cautionary Note

Andrew Storfer

24 Column

Herpetofauna in the Wildlife Trade and Nature: On the Difficulty

of Estimation

Allen Salzberg

27 News and Notes

29 Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation

Editorial

28 Words from the Editor

Craig Hassapakis

Next Issue

Conservation of South African’s Endemic Dwarf

Chameleons

Scope: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (ISSN 1083-4

wide preservation and management of amphibian and repti

tended for a wide readership from the amateur to the professional and is therefore written with abstracts, explanatory text,

full references, ample photographs, tables, figures, diagrams, and other illustrations to help elucidate the text. Foc

phibian & Reptile Conservation concentrates on publishing timely information in the form of feature articles, reviews,

short communications, columns, commentaries, book reviews, and news and notes. Frequency: Amphibian & Reptile Conser-

vation is published quarterly in the spring, summer, fall, and winter. Publisher: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 2255 North

University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA. Subseriptions: Annual subscription rate categories are individual

subscription $18.00 (US) and institutional $36.00 including postage. All subscriptions outside the United States include $7.00

for shipping (individual $25 and institutional $43). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is distributed to e country in the

world (subscribers worldwide) and delivery is guaranteed. Contributions: Contributions to the journal 3 cepted. These

resources are used to further the conservation efforts of reptiles and amphibians and the goals of the journal. Categories in-

clude friends of ARC $40, supporting $50, contributing $100, patro } aining $500 and founder (includes lifetime sub-

scription to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) $1,000. All other contributors receive four issues of Amphibian & Reptile

Conservation. Back Issues: Back issues are available from the publisher for $8 each. The premiere issue can be purchased for

$10. Payment: All journal orders must be prepaid in US currency drawn on a US bank or with an international mone

Communications: It is recommended that all correspondence be conducted via electronic mail (e-mail) whenever po

other correspondence should be directed to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 2255 North University Parkway No. 15, Provo,

Utah 84604 6 USA, B-mail; ARC@byu.edu. URL:http://www.byu.edu/~arcon/ Postmaster: Please send change of address to

publisher (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, & North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 US. weeks

duced, stored in a retrie ‘stem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording

or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Production; Manufactured and printed in the United States of America.

X) is an international peer reviewed journal devoted to the world-

Audience: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is in-

ports,

‘UspsO BloIIjeg pure [evyoI, © yystaAdon

‘uapsog eloieg pue jevyory Aq pozeuop Ajsnoraues oJ0Yg “VolY BISOD ‘}Se10q PNO[D eptoaaquow ‘Jood Surpeeaq vB ye (sauapbiiad ofng) speoz Uep[ory e[VUl OUTN *] eansig

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 4-9

The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines

Are Amphibian Populations Disappearing?

Jamie K. Reaser

Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, Cali-

fornia 94305-1901

Key Words

Population declines, extinction, conservation, research, monitoring, amphibians

Abstract

Information regarding most am-

phibian declines is anecdotal and

_ natural fluctuations in amphib-

ian population size are not un-

common. However, biologists can

no longer find amphibians in re-

gions where they were once nu-

merous, and have directly ob-

served population declines and

species extinction. Inventory and

monitoring programs are being

established worldwide in order to

assess the status of amphibian

populations and to attempt to

identify causes of declines. Fac-

tors that may be contributing to

local amphibian declines include

natural population fluctuations,

natural succession and other

changes in vegetation, introduced

predators and competitors, patho-

gens, excessive collecting, toxic

compounds, and habitat destruc-

tion. Climate disturbance, pollut-

ants, and increases in UV-B ra-

diation have been implicated in

some well documented regional

amphibian losses. These factors

may decrease amphibian popula-

tion size by causing mass mortal-

ity, reducing the ability of indi-

viduals to produce viable off-

spring, and/or by inhibiting dis-

persal of individuals. A loss of

amphibians will have a significant

Correspondence, tel: (415) 725-9915,

fax: (415) 723-5920, e-mail: jkrtoad@

leland.Stanford.edu

impact on the state of the environ-

ment, as well as a decline in our

cultural heritage and human well-

being. Both biologists and con-

cerned citizens have vital roles in

amphibian conservation. A brief

list of possible citizen actions to

help protect amphibious life is pre-

sented here.

Amphibian populations world-

wide seem to be declining. Even

the causal observer can not find

frogs, toads, and other amphib-

ians as numerously as they once

could. Within the few short de-

cades of our lifetimes, a wide va-

riety of amphibians seem to have

been disappearing. Population

declines and species extinction

dot the pages of personal journals.

Biologists now search harder than

ever, asking “why” and hoping to

find the answers so that future

generations don’t have to be told

what they are missing.

Finding answers is no easier

than finding frogs. There is ample

evidence that humankind has

greatly impacted the distribution

and abundance of animal and

plant species worldwide through

extensive habitat alteration and

degradation. Such observations

can be made daily, and by non-

biologists. What we need to know,

however, is how specific land uses

impact the population dynamics of

amphibians, and at what spatial

and temporal scales. We also need

to know what the loss of amphib-

ians means for the continued func-

tioning of ecosystems. Ultimately,

we need to know what the disap-

pearance of amphibians signifies

for human well-being.

The paucity of data

Unfortunately, information re-

garding most amphibian declines

is anecdotal. For several species,

range reductions are well docu-

mented, but local population de-

clines are less evident. For most

species, studies only provide frag-

mentary pictures of populations

on population trends.

Research on amphibian ecol-

ogy has historically lagged behind

that of other vertebrate groups

because amphibians are often dif-

ficult to study and funding is

harder to obtain. Those concerned

about the loss of Neotropical mi-

gratory birds can reference broad

ranging, standardized datasets

from numerous monitoring pro-

grams. Several of these datasets

span multiple decades; one was ini-

tiated as early as 1900. However,

long-term (decade or longer) moni-

toring programs exist for only a

few amphibian species and only at

specific sites. Amphibian popula-

tion dynamics can typically be de-

scribed as “boom or bust;” natural

6 Jamie K. Reaser

fluctuations may be the rule rath-

er than the exception. Thus, only

very long-term datasets are use-

ful in validating suspected trends

and elucidating the mechanisms of

amphibian population declines.

The first worldwide effort to

assimilate data and hypothesize

the causes and consequences of

amphibian declines was held in

Irvine, California in 1990 (Blau-

stein and Wake 1990). Since this

meeting, an international investi-

gatory team, entitled the Declin-

ing Amphibian Populations Task

Force (DAPTF) of the Species

Survival Commission (SSC), In-

ternational Union for the Conser-

vation of Nature (IUCN), has been

formed and working groups have

been designated to address poten-

tial causes (e.g., toxins, UV-B ra-

diation, pathogens) and geogra-

phic regions. The findings of work-

ing groups and individual scien-

tists are published quarterly in

the DAPTF newsletter, Froglog,

making information readily avail-

able. Conservation organizations,

naturalist societies, and regional

agencies have been successful in

establishing local amphibian in-

ventory and monitoring programs

that often effectively utilize a mas-

sive volunteer work force. County-

and continent-wide initiatives,

such as the North American Am-

phibian Monitoring Program

(NAAMP), are in various stages of

design, testing, and implementa-

tion.

What we do know

Amphibian populations can fluctu-

ate greatly between years; varia-

tions in moisture, predation, com-

petition, disease, and catastrophic

events may greatly influence popu-

lation size. Populations may suffer

great losses. Yet, if the same popu-

lations experience “good years”

that result in many surviving off-

spring, the long-term population

trend may be stable. Long-term

stability may also be attained if

amphibians from other locations

recolonize sites where popula-

tions have been annihilated. For

example, Norman Weitzel and

Howard Panik observed Pacific

chorus frogs (Pseudacris regilla)

in Nevada and found that in 80%

of the years between 1975 and

1989 frogs produced offspring that

became members of the next gen-

eration. The population was anni-

hilated from the breeding pond ten

times by natural disturbances that

included flash floods, stream dry-

ups, and sudden increases in water

temperature. Yet, after each local

extinction event, this population

was soon reestablished by coloniz-

ing chorus frogs.

Extremely long-term data-

sets are required to distinguish be-

tween natural population fluctua-

tions and anthropogenically in-

duced declines. Joseph Pechmann

and his colleagues monitored

populations of one species of frog

and three species of aquatic-

breeding salamanders in the

southeastern U.S. for twelve con-

secutive years. They found no evi-

dence of drastic declines for any

species, although the populations

sizes did fluctuate. However, bi-

ologists Michael Reed and An-

drew Blaustein recently reana-

lyzed Pechmann’s data as well as

that from four other long-term

studies using a statistical tool

called power analysis. All these

studies, analyzed by this method,

indicated no declines. While the

datasets from these studies were

not extensive enough to reveal

statistical evidence of a decline,

the lack of decline in populations

of these amphibians could not be

supported. Thus, even with twelve

years worth of scientifically rigor-

ous data, the status of these am-

phibian populations cannot be de-

FEATURE (Scientific)

finitively assessed.

Amphibians cannot be found

in many of the locations where they

were once numerous. Yellow-leg-

ged frogs, red-legged frogs, spot-

ted frogs, leopard frogs, western

toads, cricket frogs, and tiger sala-

manders are a few of the North

American amphibians dwindling

in the number of sites of occur-

rence and population size. The am-

phibian queue for listing under the

United States’ federal Endan-

gered Species Act has become so

long that species ruled as justified

for protection are precluded from

it for years by stacks of preceding

paperwork.

Herpetologists have wit-

nessed the vanishing of amphibian

populations, and even entire spe-

cies. Biologists Stephen Corn and

James Fogleman conducted an ex-

ceptional study, documenting six

populations of the leopard frog

(Rana pipiens) in Colorado for the

decade 1973-1982. In 1973 only a

single population failed to repro-

duce. For frogs this may not be un-

usual, but by 1981 no leopard frogs

could be found at any of the sites.

The study ended with a total ab-

sence of R. pipiens in the region.

The golden toad (Bufo per-

iglenes) of Costa Rica, so named

because of the male’s bright or-

ange color, never failed to show up

for its annual spring breeding orgy

(see Figure 1, page 4) from the

early 1970s through 1987. Martha

Crump and her colleagues counted

1500 individual adult golden toads

in 1987, but noted that only 29 tad-

poles metamorphosed and joined

the population. From 1988 to 1990

these biologists located only 11

toads. Bufo periglenes has not been

seen at the study site since.

In Australia, just north of

Brisbane, a bizarre little frog was

discovered in 1973. The gastric

brooding frog (Rheobatrachus

silus), so named because it swal-

FEATURE (Scientific)

lowed and brooded its young in its

stomach, was an immediate won-

der to science and a potential boon

for physiologists interested in find-

ing cures for ulcers and possibly

other gastric disorders in humans.

A loss of worldwide significance,

the frog has not been seen since

1979, leaving little clue as to what

caused its extinction. Strangely

enough, its natural habitat was

found in seemingly pristine tropi-

cal forest, far from routine human

disturbance.

Why are amphibians

declining?

Could the above mentioned frogs

have succumbed to natural, local-

ized climatic disturbances such as

drought ... been the victims of op-

portunistic pathogens ... suffered

from a yet, undetected global at-

mospheric phenomenon? Could

the little known golden toad and

gastric brooding frog merely be

sitting it out underground, await-

ing what they consider more fa-

vorable conditions?

It is difficult to generalize as

to the causes of amphibian disap-

pearances. Not every amphibian

population, nor every species, is

declining. And, those that are de-

clining are doing so at varying

rates and scales. Figuring out

what is happening to amphibians

and why is exasperatingly difficult

and exhaustingly time consuming.

Locally, factors that may be

contributing to amphibian de-

clines include natural population

fluctuations, natural succession

and other changes in vegetation,

introduced predators and com-

petitors, pathogens, excessive col-

lecting, toxic compounds, and habi-

tat destruction. Climate distur-

bance, pollutants (particularly

those associated with acid deposi-

tion and pesticides), and increases

The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines 7

in UV-B radiation have been im-

plicated in some well documented

regional amphibian losses (see re-

views by Barinaga 1990; Wyman

1990; Blaustein and Wake 1990;

Tyler 1991; Phillips 1994; Blau-

stein and Wake 1995).

Unfortunately, there may be

a significant time lag between the

negative influence of a factor on

amphibians and evidence of a

population decline. Prospecting for

cause and effect relationships is,

therefore, exceptionally difficult

even in contemporary studies. Di-

agnosis is further complicated be-

cause factors can act in concert

and their relationship is rarely ob-

vious. For example, frogs have

been observed to die of an infec-

tion caused by a common, wide-

spread microbe called Aeromonas

hydrophilla that is not normally

pathogenic. Any number of other

factors may inhibit frogs’ immune

systems, making them susceptible

to infection.

Three general hypotheses

illustrate the mechanisms by

which various factors can cause

the extinction of amphibian popu-

lations, and eventually species:

1) Mass Mortality hypothesis

A factor or combination of factors

influences amphibians in such a

manner as to induce mortality of

individuals, sometimes entire

populations. Different factors

may contribute to mortality at

varying points in amphibian de-

velopment. However, the decline

of many populations is not merely

a problem of producing viable off-

spring. It is apparent that some

factors are influencing adult sur-

vivorship because many of the

rapid declines are occurring in

periods far shorter than the ani-

mals’ life span.

2) Reduction of Fitness

hypothesis

One or more sublethal factor(s)

reduces the ability of individual

amphibians to produce viable off-

spring (7.e., “fitness”). This eventu-

ally leads to population declines

and even population- and species-

level extinction. Genetic variation,

growth rate, size at maturity, lon-

gevity, and physiological con-

straints all influence the fitness of

amphibians. Some amphibians

have such specific conditions for

breeding that even subtle environ-

mental changes can result in the

failure of a population to breed.

3) Failure to Rescue

hypothesis

The observed declines are prima-

rily driven by the failure to rees-

tablish populations following lo-

cal extinction. Typically, when a

local population goes extinct, the

habitat is colonized by amphib-

ians dispersing from nearby

sources (this reestablishment is

termed the “rescue effect”). Under

this scenario, changes in the

chemical or structural environ-

ment prevent amphibians from

dispersing widely.

Several biological character-

istics of amphibians are likely to

impede recolonization following

local extinction: (1) physiological

limitations (particularly water re-

quirements) make it difficult,

even impossible, for amphibians

to persist in or travel through

suboptimal habitat; (2) amphib-

ians tend to have small home

ranges, many move only short dis-

tances, and rarely “wander”; and

(3) amphibians, especially the

adults of many species are ex-

tremely faithful to a specific loca-

tion, or set of locations, and are un-

likely to abandon sites even if they

can no longer breed there.

8 Jamie K. Reaser

The specific means (e.g.,

physiological processes) by which

these general mechanisms operate

are not well understood and are

rarely investigated. In part, this is

due to the fact that solving the

puzzle requires the cooperation of

experts across disciplines as di-

verse as geology and genetics. Re-

egretfully, most biologists are highly

specialized and rarely trained or

encouraged to work with col-

leagues from other fields. When

they have, however, pieces of the

puzzle fall into place. For example,

and interdisciplinary team in Or-

egon led by Andrew Blaustein is

now able to illustrate how strato-

spheric ozone depletion may lead

to amphibian population decline. It

works like this: Ultraviolet-b radia-

tion penetrates the Earth’s thin-

ning, protective ozone shield and

beams its way to earth where it

comes in contact with amphibian

eggs. The high-level and/or pro-

longed exposure to radiation caus-

es damage to eggs’ DNA (the ge-

netic information template) mol-

ecules, which in turn results in the

death of cells and thus tadpoles do

not develop. As adult frogs die and

are not replaced by new genera-

tions, the population declines and

eventually goes extinct. Blaustein

and the other investigators further

learned that different amphibian

species have varying amounts of

photolase, an enzyme that can re-

pair DNA damage. The declining

Cascades frog is low in photolase,

while the coexisting and successful

Pacific chorus frog has good DNA

repair capabilities; extra copies of

photolase genes secure protection.

The impact of amphibian

declines

A loss of amphibians will have a

significant impact on the state of

the environment. Amphibians are

vital components of the world’s

ecosystems. Amphibians comprise

one-quarter of all vertebrate spe-

cies on earth and sometimes con-

stitute the highest percentage of

vertebrate biomass in a given

area. This measure may be posi-

tively correlated with a species’

contribution to ecosystem func-

tion; 7.é., it is one indication of the

organisms’ importance to main-

taining the system’s integrity. Am-

phibians consume aquatic vegeta-

tion, invertebrates and other ver-

tebrates, and are eaten by numer-

ous predators. Therefore, amphib-

ians play multiple, vital roles in the

food chain of ecosystems.

Amphibians are apparently

declining even in seemingly pris-

tine, protected areas worldwide.

Because of these trends, many

biologists are pondering whether

amphibian declines should be in-

terpreted as a warning signal;

that is to say that the disappear-

ance of amphibians indicates that

something is gravely amiss in the

biosphere. Because amphibians

have permeable gills, skin, and

eggs; have diverse life histories;

are widely distributed and occupy

a variety of habitats, their popu-

lation dynamics may qualify as

reliable gauges of environmental

health Gf only we can learn to in-

terpret the signals).

Frogs are totems of luck for

numerous native culture; many

hunting poisons, ceremonial hallu-

cinogens, and medicinal drugs are

amphibian products. Amphibians

are chemical factories and the

compounds they produce may

hold cures to all sorts of ills, in-

cluding AIDS and cancer. If

you’ve had painkillers adminis-

tered recently, you may have a

frog or two to thank. For an excel-

lent review of amphibian contribu-

tions to medicine, see Grenard’s

(1994) Medical Herpetology.

FEATURE (Scientific)

You can make a difference

Approximately 5,000 amphibians

have been described by science,

with additional descriptions being

cataloged at a rate of 1 to 2 per-

cent a year. The rate of loss is

immeasurable; we don’t know

how many amphibians have come

and gone without recognition.

The amphibian decline “cri-

ses” demands that the status of

amphibian populations be rapidly

assessed and that where declines

are apparent, mechanisms be iden-

tified, managed, and recovery pro-

grams established. This is much

more easily stated than accom-

plished. There are far more am-

phibians than biologists investigat-

ing their declines. Funding is hard

to come by, particularly for the

long-term studies that are critical

to understanding amphibian popu-

lation dynamics. Also, time is not

on the side of the amphibian popu-

lation dynamics—human popula-

tion and resource consumption

continue to increase, rapidly

changing the landscape that am-

phibians have been evolving in for

roughly 350 million years.

Yes, there is hope. Amphib-

ian populations have rebounded

and sites have been recolonized

following massive die-offs. Main-

tenance and recovery of environ-

mental quality, and the restora-

tion of fragmented landscapes will

enable amphibians to persist.

As a citizen concerned about

amphibians, your role in amphib-

ian conservation is as critical as

that of any highly trained biologist.

The following is a very brief list of

the many actions that you can

take to help protect amphibians,

and maintain their vital roles in

the circle of life.

e Become a volunteer assistant for

a local amphibian monitoring pro-

FEATURE (Scientific)

gram or research project. Contact

your regional wildlife agency for

information on studies in your

area.

e Enlighten other people to the

wonders and plight of amphibians

by harnessing your enthusiasm

and knowledge. Talk to children,

the media, local officials, and the

voting public.

¢ Support legislation that pro-

motes healthy, intact ecosystems.

¢ Fight legislation that weakens

control of pollution and land de-

velopment.

¢ Encourage government agen-

cies to fund long-term research

projects on amphibians.

¢ Respect your wetlands by keep-

ing them healthy. Do not pollute

them with unnatural refuse such

as litter and harmful chemicals

(e.g., petroleum products and pes-

ticides).

* Organize routine cleanup pro-

jects.

¢ Admire amphibians in the wild;

don’t keep them as pets (animals

kept for research, in legitimate

conservation breeding projects,

and as educational displays such

as in zoological parks and aquari-

ums are not considered pets and

contribute to the conservation of

species).

By joining forces, biologists and con-

cerned citizens around the world

can become a very powerful lobby

for the conservation of amphibians.

And amphibians, inventoried and

monitored by these people, may be

a powerful gauge for ensuring the

protection of all life.

The Elucidation of Amphibian Declines 9

References

Barinaga, M. 1990. Where have all the

froggies gone? Science 24: 1033-1034.

Blaustein, A.R. 1994. UV repair and

resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian

eggs: A link to population declines?

Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences (USA) 91: 1791-1795.

Blaustein, A.R. and Wake, D.B. 1990.

Declining amphibian populations: A global

phenomenon? Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 5: 7.

Blaustein, A.R. and Wake, D.B. 1995. The

puzzle of declining amphibian populations.

Scientific American 272(4): 52-57.

Corn, PS. and Fogleman, J.C. 1984. Ex-

tinction of montane populations of the

northern leopard from (Rana pipiens)

in Colorado. Journal of Herpetology 18:

147-152.

Crump, M.L., Hensley, FR., and Clark,

K.L. 1992. Decline of the golden toad:

Underground or extinct? Copeia 1992:

413-420.

Grenard, S. 1994. Medical Herpetology.

Reptile and Amphibian Magazine, Potts-

ville, Pennsylvania. 139 pp.

Pechmann, J.H.K. and Wilbur, H.M. 1994.

Putting declining amphibian populations

in perspective: Natural fluctuation and

human impacts. Herpetologica 50: 65-

84.

Pechmann, J.H.K., Scott, D.E., Sem-

litsch, R.D., Caldwell, J.P, Vitt, L.J.,

and Gibbons, J.W. 1991. Declining am-

phibian populations: The problem of sep-

arating human impacts from natural

fluctuations. Science 253: 892-895.

Phillips, K. 1994. Tracking the Vanishing

Amphibians. St. Martin’s Press, New

York. 244 pp.

Reed, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. 1995.

Assessment of “non-declining” amphibian

populations using power analysis. Con-

servation Biology. In Press.

Tyler, M.J. 1991. Declining amphibian

populations—a global phenomenon? An

Australian perspective. Altyes 9: 43-50.

Weitzel, N.H. and Panik, H.R. 1993.

Long-term fluctuations of an isolated

population of the Pacific chorus frog

(Pseudacris regilla) in northwestern

Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 53:

379-384.

Wyman, R.L. 1990. What’s happening to

the amphibians? Conservation Biology

4: 350-352.

While the Bird Conservation Specialist

for the Smithsonian Institution’s Mi-

gratory Bird Center, Jamie K. Reaser

coauthored her first book, Bring Back

The Birds: What You Can Do To Save

Threatened Species (Stackpole Press

1995). In 1993 Dr. Paul Ehrlich, pre-

sented Jamie with the opportunity to

pursue her interest in amphibians

through formal investigation as his

doctoral student at Stanford Univer-

sity. Both Jamie and Dr. Paul Ehrlich

are interested in what amphibian pop-

ulation trends might indicate about the

health status of the biosphere.

One of Jamie’s greatest rewards of

her work with amphibians is the oppor-

tunity to mentor undergraduate stu-

dents who are interested in amphibian

ecology and conservation. An open in-

vitation is extended to those interested

to visit her at Stanford University.

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 10-14

Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas:

A Brief History

David L. Reber’ and Alison Smith Reber?

‘Assistant Director, Natural Heritage Center, Inc., 25124 Linwood Road, Lawrence, Kansas 66044-7311,

“Director, Natural Heritage Center, Inc. and Chair, Kansas Herpetological Society, Education and Conserva-

tion Initiatives, 303 West 39th Street, Hays, Kansas 67601-1518

Key Words

Rattlesnake roundups, commercialization, prairie rattlesnake, Kansas, conservation, legislation, poach-

ing, Crotalus viridi

Abstract

Organized hunting (“roundups”)

of rattlesnakes for commercial

profit has occurred for 50 or more

years in several states in the U.S.

For along period, such roundups

went unnoticed by wildlife agen-

cies, biologists, and herpetologists.

In recent years, there has been

increasing concern that such in-

tense and largely unregulated

hunting could have an adverse

effect on wild populations of

rattlesnakes. There have been few

conclusive studies on the topic.

The first organized rattlesnake

roundup to occur in Kansas was

held in September of 1992 in the

small town of Sharon Springs,

and it is the intent of this paper to

outline a series of events which

occurred in the first, formative

years of the roundup. Prior to the

introduction of rattlesnake round-

ups into Kansas, all native am-

phibians and reptiles were pro-

tected from commercial interests

by state law. The first roundup

had little economic benefit for the

participants, as all carcasses were

either given or thrown away. Be-

fore the second roundup (held less

than a year later) the organizers of

the roundup succeeded in changing

‘Correspondence, tel/fax: (913) 843-2205

(must contact in advance before send-

ing faxes), e-mail: reber@idir.net

state wildlife laws to accommodate

their economic interests. The ob-

jections and recommendations of

the Kansas Department of Wildlife

& Parks (KDWP), conservation

organizations, and professional

biologists were essentially ignored

so that a select few might profit

from commercial use of rattle-

snakes. It became clear that eco-

nomic gain for the roundup pro-

moters and vendors held a higher

priority than sound wildlife man-

agement. The legalized sale of

rattlesnakes and their parts, in-

cluding meat for human con-

sumption, raised new concerns

regarding meat inspection laws in

Kansas. Shortly before the third

roundup, the Kansas Department

of Health and Environment

(KDHE) informed the roundup

organizers that their practice of

selling uninspected meat was ille-

gal. Nonetheless, the sponsors sold

rattlesnake meat the following

weekend. Clearly, the roundup or-

ganizers intended to violate the law

as long as there was money to be

made. The roundup organizers

were never prosecuted and no fines

were levied. Although a rattle-

snake roundup has taken hold and

continues to prosper in Kansas, it

is clear that without the efforts of

biologists and concerned citizens

the situation would be much

worse. Many of the more mali-

cious aspects of the roundup have

been tempered as a direct result of

the efforts of relatively few indi-

viduals and organizations.

Word travels fast in the Kansas

Herpetological Society (KHS). All

were astounded and appalled that

the unthinkable was on the verge

of occurring right here in our very

own herpetologically enlightened

state. It can’t happen here. Bad

things, you know, always happen

somewhere else. Yet there, in gi-

ant black type on ugly electric yel-

low paper, was the announcement:

“Kansas’s First Ever Rattlesnake

Roundup!” It was to be held in

Sharon Springs, Kansas—spitting

distance from Colorado—on La-

bor Day Weekend 1992. We were

all too familiar with the broad-

ranging destructiveness of rattle-

snake roundups in other states:

the unregulated taking of wild ani-

mals for commercial profit, the use

of gasoline to flush snakes out of

shelters, the neglect and abuse of

captive animals, and the perpetu-

ation of antisnake sentiment. This

roundup was advertised as a

fundraiser; a family oriented event

with the added benefit of “control-

ling overpopulation” of rattle-

snakes which, sponsors claimed,

FEATURE (Popular)

cause immeasurable damage to

humans and domestic animals in

western Kansas.

Hosting a rattlesnake round-

up was not an idea that citizens of

Sharon Springs conceived on their

own. Members of the sponsoring

organizations had friendly ties

with James White, owner of the

“Fangs and Rattlers Show” from

Granbury, Texas. In fact, one wo-

man from Sharon Springs served

as a bridesmaid in White’s wed-

ding—a wedding that took place in

a snake pit. Sharon Springs

was looking for a fund-raiser,

and James White was looking

for another gig. The snakes,

they believed, were free for

the taking. A rattlesnake

roundup in Sharon Springs

was the perfect solution.

Herpetologists did not agree.

At the time, Kansas law

prohibited the sale of any wild

reptile or amphibian, includ-

ing prairie rattlesnakes, and

limited possession to five ani-

mals. The roundup sponsors

did plan a few tricks to bypass

these existing laws, such as

giving away rattlesnake

meat, provided that the re-

cipient purchased a bun on

which to eat it. Many herpe-

tologists concerned about the

rattlesnake roundups were confi-

dent that the state’s wildlife

agency would not stand for such

attempts to circumvent the law.

Several of these herpetologists

sent token letters of concern to

various individuals and agencies,

and returned responses ranged

from reassurance to hostility. Kan-

sas Herpetological Society (KHS)

representatives made several

vain attempts to educate roundup

sponsors and to shape the event

into something less destructive.

Nonetheless, the roundup com-

menced as planned.

An estimated 2000 people

Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas 11

attended the roundup; among them

were KHS members Henry and

Virginia Fitch and Travis Taggart,

who had been contracted by the

Kansas Department of Wildlife &

Parks (KDWP) to collect data on

the size and reproductive condi-

tion of captured snakes. This data

collection alone provided little in-

formation about the effects of the

roundup. Other KHS members in

attendance to observe and report

on the activities of the roundup

included Dr. David Edds of Empo-

One of the sideshow type tricks shown at the

“Fangs and Rattler” show.

ria State University, Randall Reis-

erer, and David Reber of the Uni-

versity of Kansas. Several veter-

ans of Oklahoma’s roundups were

also in attendance, to help in the

“snake pit” and to guide groups in

search of prairie rattlesnakes. A

total of 75 prairie rattlesnakes

were turned in (Edds 1992), 18 of

which were born at the roundup.

All 75 were ultimately killed. The

snake meat sales trick failed, and

most of the meat was either given

away or thrown away, as were all

other snake parts. The roundup did

earn a substantial amount of mon-

ey, through assorted trinket ven-

dors, snake products from other

states, food service, and tickets to

the “Fangs and Rattlers Show,”

direct from Granbury, Texas. The

“Fangs and Rattlers Show” was

typical roundup entertainment,

the announcer cajoling the crowd

while the pit crew performed dare-

devil tricks, most of which involved

unnecessary rough treatment of

the animals. Children were invited

to pet loosely restrained rattle-

snakes, and dangle inflated bal-

loons into the pit in hopes of entic-

ing a strike. Overall, a carnival-

like atmosphere pervaded

and, with current laws prohib-

iting the sale of wild caught

prairie rattlesnakes, the

snakes themselves were not

the central money maker.

Those of us in attendance at

the roundup remained confi-

dent that the roundup organiz-

ers would lose interest and

move on to something less de-

structive. The thought that ex-

isting laws could be legislated

moot never crossed our minds.

Enter Sheila Frahm,

Senate majority leader repre-

senting the Sharon Springs

area. Senator Frahm began

her political career as a mem-

ber of the Sharon Springs lo-

cal school board. Unknown to

us, Senator Frahm had also at-

tended the first roundup, even

helping to weigh the snakes. Then,

during the 1993 legislative ses-

sion, she introduced a bill (Senate

Bill 137) that, if passed, would not

only allow the sale of prairie rattle-

snakes, but would raise the limit

from 5 to 30, and remove all man-

agement authority from the De-

partment of Wildlife & Parks.

Once again we thought: it can’t

happen here. We all assumed that

our enlightened legislature would

never pass such an anticonserva-

tion bill. Still, KHS and numerous

herpetologists provided testi-

mony against the bill, as did the

DAVID L. REBER

12 David L. Reber and Alison Smith Reber

Kansas Wildlife Federation, the

Kansas Audubon Council, the To-

peka Zoo, the Sedgwick County

Zoological Society, the Kansas

Chapter of the Sierra Club, and

even the Kansas Department of

Wildlife & Parks (KDWP). Appar-

ently politics, not prudence, drove

the issue, as the bill passed with

little opposition. There was some

success for conservationists; the

final bill was altered to place

regulation of the roundup back

into the hands of KDWP.

Before KDWP could enact

regulations, a second

roundup was held in the

spring of 1993, less than

one month after Senate

Bill 137 became law. A

springtime roundup was

recommended by repre-

sentatives of Oklahoma

and Texas roundups. This,

combined with the gener-

ous bag limit allowed by

the legislature, resulted in

over 170 snakes being

taken—more than double

the number of the first

roundup (Western Times

1993). Senator Frahm and

her daughter Chrissy were

in attendance and, in recognition

of her “heroic” efforts, Frahm was

presented with her very own

snake bucket and tongs.

Shortly after the second

roundup, KDWP began the long

process of developing regulations

for commercial use of prairie

rattlesnakes. Initially, KDWP

asked Oklahoma officials for ad-

vice on the issue, in spite of the

fact that Oklahoma roundups tar-

get a different (and much more

prolific) species, the western dia-

mondback. Roundup organizers

lobbied KDWP, asking for no pos-

session limit, a year-round season,

and no restrictions on the open

area. KHS (1993) president Dr.

David Edds attended virtually ev-

ery meeting of the Wildlife &

Parks Commission, recommend-

ing that KDWP reset the posses-

sion limit at 5 snakes, limit the

open area to only the counties

surrounding Sharon Springs, and

limit the open season to the round-

up weekend. Many others ad-

dressed the Commission as well,

advocating moderation in light of

the glaring lack of sound biologi-

cal information. In spite of their

testimony, each draft of the regu-

lations proved more lenient. Fur-

thermore, when herpetologists at-

Another one of the sideshow type tricks shown at the

“Fangs and Rattler” show.

tended, the issue was often re-

moved from the meeting agenda,

as if the Commission were at-

tempting to push regulations

through without input from the sci-

entific community. Again, politics

drove the issue.

It was decided by the KHS

that their position statement

must be reinforced using the avail-

able scientific literature and pub-

lished, for permanent record and

to assist policymakers. Thus, a po-

sition paper was written, totaling

11 pages and 48 references. The

paper included recommendations

for regulating the roundup—rec-

ommendations aimed at pro-

moting sportsmanship and a sus-

tainable yield of Crotalus viridis.

FEATURE (Popular)

A copy of the paper was provided

to each member of the Wildlife &

Parks Commission, as well as to

the Department Secretary, Theo-

dore Ensley. At the final ruling in

January of 1994, conservationists

were extremely disappointed. The

lenient draft regulations passed

with few modifications. The only

successes were lowering the pos-

session limit from 30 to 20, limit-

ing the open season to a 30 day

period prior to the roundup, and

limiting the open area to the west-

ern third of the state (approxi-

mately one half of the prai-

rie rattlesnake’s range in

Kansas). One major loop-

hole remained: the spon-

soring organizations were

not subject to a possession

limit. Thus, one person

could conceivably catch

their limit, sell their catch

to the roundup sponsors,

then head back for more,

effectively circumventing

the existing possession

limit. KDWP defended the

regulations as a compro-

mise between interest

groups.

Clearly, arguments based on

the biology of the prairie rattle-

snake and sound wildlife manage-

ment were not taken seriously. The

bottom line was money, and a way

to touch the bankbooks of the

roundup sponsors was badly needed

if their plans were to be altered.

KHS discovered that the Kansas

Department of Health and Environ-

ment (KDHE) has strict regulations

pertaining to the butchering and sale

of meat. Essentially, both the butch-

ering facility and the meat itself

must be inspected and passed by

KDHE before any meat can be sold.

A letter was sent by KHS to KDHE

immediately, along with an expla-

nation of the past butchering pro-

cess and an advertising flyer for the

upcoming roundup. KDHE repre-

DAVIDL REBER

FEATURE (Popular)

Rattlesnake Roundup in Kansas 13

possibly fashioned into an item such as a hatband).

sentatives contacted the roundup

organizers, explained meat pro-

cessing and sales laws, and in-

formed them of the penalties for vio-

lating those laws.

The third roundup was held

in May of 1994. The take totaled

over 300 animals, again doubling

the previous year’s take (Fitch

1994). KDWP’s research indicated

most of these snakes had been

stockpiled for extended periods,

despite the open season having

been only one month. Virtually ev-

ery snake exhibited dermal rot-

ting, lesions, abrasions, lacera-

tions, or paralysis, and most were

severely emaciated (Taggart

1994). Some were dead, presum-

ably having been crushed under

the accumulated mass of snakes in

small containers. Owing to the

poor condition and small size of

the prairie rattlesnakes, and the

tediousness of butchering small,

tough-skinned snakes, the round-

up sponsors purchased a number

of western diamondback rattle-

snakes to butcher and sell. The

butchering facility, located in a

livestock wash area at the local

fairgrounds, had been cleaned up

a bit (members of the audience

were no longer invited to ceremo-

niously behead snakes with a

rusted hatchet, for example);

however, they continued to ille-

gally butcher and sell uninspected

meat. The violations were re-

ported to KDHE. In spite of prior

warnings, the roundup sponsors

pleaded ignorance and received

only a letter of reprimand—no fine

was levied. KDHE officials did

state, however, that a second of-

fense would be prosecuted.

The Kansas Herpetological

Society has always encouraged

conservation of amphibians and

reptiles in Kansas. Laws protect-

ing wildlife from commercializa-

tion had provided a strong foun-

dation for these efforts, but the

advent of the rattlesnake roundup

Prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus) which was taken at a roundup in 1992 (it can be assumed that it was slaughtered—

has weakened that foundation con-

siderably. It will be an arduous

task to regain what we once had,

but it can be done. Efforts to date

have resulted in many significant

improvements, and have buffered

many of the more negative as-

pects of the roundup. Some of the

more malicious aspects of the first

roundup have been diminished or

eliminated altogether. For ex-

ample, at the first roundup the

butcher shop offered spectators a

chance to swing the hatchet. This

was done ceremoniously, and was

portrayed as insidious revenge on

the rattlesnake. By the third

roundup, the “ceremony” was

gone, and the butchering was

nothing more and nothing less

than butchering. Direct negative

effects on children have also been

reduced slightly. At the first

roundup, children were invited to

participate (for a fee, of course) in

the torment of rattlesnakes via

“balloon fishing”. Children waved

DAVID L REBER

14 David L. Reber and Alison Smith Reber

inflated balloons over the heads of

rattlesnakes while the pit atten-

dant stomped at the snakes in an

effort to elicit a strike. The “bal-

loon fishing” activity has now been

eliminated. Furthermore, the

roundup sponsors no longer ad-

vertise the event as a means of

“controlling overpopulation” of

rattlesnakes. Nor do they continu-

ally deride the animals as the

scourge of the prairie. Overall,

these small improvements add up

to an event that is much less per-

nicious to young minds than it

might have been. However, there

have been some less-than-honest

attempts to pacify the conserva-

tion community. For the third

roundup, the sponsors had desig-

nated several areas totaling 88

square miles as “rattlesnake pre-

serves” where hunting of rattle-

snakes was not allowed. Further

investigation revealed that these

areas were nothing more than

land for which the owners had de-

nied permission to trespass. Thus,

the roundup sponsors did not in

fact designate “rattlesnake pre-

serves,” but simply capitalized on

inaccessible land as a public rela-

tions gimmick.

Some headway has been

made with respect to regulating

the roundup. Although a 20 snake

limit is still far too high, and a 30

day season far too long, it is likely

that, without the efforts of many

herpetologists and conservation-

ists, the sponsors would have been

granted their request of no posses-

sion limit and a 12 month season.

In addition, the entire state of

Kansas would likely have been

opened to the roundup, despite the

fact that prairie rattlesnakes only

live in the western half. Having no

limit on where rattlesnakes could

be collected throughout the state

could have placed other species,

including the state-protected tim-

ber rattlesnake, at risk. Much has

been accomplished, yet there is

still much to be done.

Several changes have oc-

curred since the third roundup.

Senator Frahm is now Lieutenant

Governor Frahm. Because she has

lost her powerful position in the

legislature, she has much less abil-

ity to persuade other legislators,

and less power also with the

KDWP. In addition, she is now

subject to more intense scrutiny

than in the past, and thus she may

be less apt to promote anticonser-

vation measures. Also, there is

some question about the location of

the fourth roundup, as it is ru-

mored it will move to the nearby

town of Colby, Kansas, the home-

town of Sheila Frahm. Whether

these changes are good or bad is

largely up to the conservation

community, and how it acts con-

cerning them. There are several

trump cards yet to be played, but

in the long run it is the grassroots

effort that will keep the snakes in

the grass—where they belong.

References

Edds, D. 1992. Observations on the 1992

Sharon Springs Rattlesnake Roundup.

Kansas Herpetological Society News-

letter, No. 90.

Fitch, H.S. 1994. The Sharon Springs

rattlesnake roundup. April 29-May 1,

1994. Unpublished report to Kansas

Department of Wildlife & Parks. 10

pages.

Taggart, T. 1994. Letter to Robert F.

Hartmann, Investigation and Inventory

Supervisor, Kansas Department of

Wildlife & Parks. Kansas Herpetol-

ogical Society Newsletter, No. 98.

Western Times, The. 1993. Large

Crowd Attend Rattlesnake Hunt. The

Western Times, May 6, 1993.

FEATURE (Popular)

David L. Reber earned a BS in Systemat-

ics and Ecology from the University of

Kansas in 1991. He then pursued grad-

uate work at the University of Kansas

in the School of Education, and in 1995

received a Kansas Teaching Certificate

for middle and secondary level science.

During his graduate work, David was

voted president-elect of the Kansas Herpe-

tological Society (KHS), of which he

had been a member since 1980. During

his three years on the KHS executive

council, he has focused the society’s

efforts on conservation issues includ-

ing, but not limited to, rattlesnake

roundups. He now teaches at the Natwr-

al Heritage Center, Inc., where he is also

associate director, and at Raintree Ele-

mentary School in Lawrence, Kansas.

In 1985, he saw a photograph of a

young field biologist with four bull-

snakes in her lap; he later married her.

Alison L. Reber earned a bachelor’s

degree in Environmental Studies from

the University of Kansas in 1994. She

has been an active member of KHS, is

coauthor of the KHS Position Paper

Regarding Rattlesnake Roundups, and

has coordinated many efforts to reduce

the impact of commercial taking of prat-

rie rattlesnakes in Kansas. Alison has

provided hundreds of children with

hands-on natural history experiences,

often emphasizing herpetology. In early

1995, she founded the Natural Heritage

Center, Inc. (NHC), a nonprofit chil-

dren’s science education center in

Lawrence, Kansas, which she now di-

rects. She also teaches at Raintree

Montessori School in Lawrence. Alison

is a firm believer in the power of edu-

cation. Both authors hope that early,

positive experiences with nature will

help people make wiser decisions re-

garding our natural resources.

For further reading about rattle-

snake roundups the authors suggest the

Kansas Herpetological Society Position

Paper Regarding Rattlesnake Round-

ups, (Kansas Herpetological Society

Newsletter, No. 96: 9-20, 1994), The

Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup: A

Case Study in Environmental Ethics, by

Jack Weir (Conservation Biology, Vol-

ume 6, Number 20), and Driving Out

the Dread Serpent, by Ted Williams

(Audubon, September 1990).

i Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 15-19

Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on

Peaks Of Otter Salamander (Plethodon

hubrichti) Populations

Joseph C. Mitchell’, Jill A. Wicknick?, and Carl D. Anthony’

‘Department of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173-0002, °>Department of Biol-

ogy, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504, *Department of Biology, Univer-

sity of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana 70504

Abstract

The Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) 7s endemic to a small portion of the Blue Ridge

Mountains in Virginia. Much of its range lies within a high timber producing area owned by the National

Forest Service. Comparisons of salamander abundance on replicated transects in recent clearcuts, older

clearcuts, recent shelterwood sites, and mature sites revealed no significant differences. However, recent

clearcuts, supported consistently fewer salamanders than other sites. Salamanders in mature sites con-

sumed significantly more soft-bodied prey than in other sites. Numbers of hard-bodied prey did not differ

among sites. Timber harvesting practices do not eliminate this species but may diminish population size

and diet quality.

Key words

Plethodon hubrichti, timber harvesting, populations, Peaks of Otter salamander, conservation, ecology,

natural history, Virginia

Introduction

The entire range of the Peaks of Otter salamander

(Plethodon hubrichti) is limited to an approximately

19 kilometers (km) long portion of the Blue Ridge

Mountains in Bedford and Botetourt Counties, Vir-

ginia (Highton 1986; Pague and Mitchell 1991). Its

habitat is limited to elevations above 443 meters (m)

in deciduous forest and densities are highest in ar-

eas containing mature hardwoods. Logging impact

on terrestrial salamanders has resulted in complete

extirpation of local populations of other terrestrial

plethodontids and in population fragmentation with

probable genetic and demographic consequences

(Ash 1988; Buhlmann, et al. 1988; Dodd 1989, 1991;

Petranka, et al. 1993, 1994). If long-term conserva-

tion of the Peaks of Otter salamander is to prevail

it will require that populations not be severely im-

pacted by timbering practices that lead to local ex-

tinctions.

Several kinds of timber operations (clearcuts,

Correspondence, tel: (804) 740-7086, fax: (S04) 289-8233,

e-mail: mitchell@urvax.urich.edu

shelterwood cuts, group selection cuts) and poten-

tial, defoliation by gypsy moths may affect the

salamander’s forest floor habitat. Drying of leaf lit-

ter and humus layers due to canopy removal

(Pough, et al. 1987; Dodd 1991; Dupuis, et al. 1995)

limits salamander movements and the ability to for-

age. Jaeger (1990) and Jaeger and Barnard (1981)

clearly show that Red-backed salamanders (Pleth-

odon cinereus) foraged less and consumed fewer prey

in dry periods than in wet periods. If the canopy ina

logged site is eliminated and the forest floor becomes

relatively drier (as compared to a forested site), then

we would expect salamanders to be able to forage

less often and obtain fewer prey. Lowered prey con-

sumption may affect other aspects of their life his-

tory. Assessments of the impact of timber harvest-

ing practices on terrestrial salamanders such as the

Peaks of Otter salamander are necessary for biolo-

gists and resource managers interested in its con-

servation and in the economic uses of the forest.

In this preliminary report on a multiyear study,

we address the following objectives: (1) To compare

the size of P. hubrichti populations in sites that have

received four different types of timber management,

16 Joseph C. Mitchell, et al.

SCIENTIFIC

Table 1. Average numbers (+/- one standard deviation and range) of Peaks of Otter salamanders in replicates of three types

of timber management and mature forest stands in fall 1994 and spring 1995.

Treatment No. Replicates Fall 1994

Recent clearcut 6 4.7 +/- 4.6 (0-12)

Older clearcut 6 8.0 +/- 9.2 (0-25)

Shelterwood 5 8.0 +/- 10.8 (1-27)

Mature 6 8.8 +/- 5.0 (1-15)

Overall 7.4 +/- 7.7

and (2) To elucidate prey use patterns of populations

in the various treatments.

Materials and Methods

A total of 23 transects were established 16-18 June

1994 in the following treatment categories: recent

(4-5 years) clear cuts (number (n) = 6), 12-18 year

old clearcuts (n = 6), 2-4 year old shelterwood cuts

(n = 5), and mature (>80 years old) hardwood sites

(n = 6). There were too few separate shelterwood

cuts in the area to obtain a sixth site.

At each site, we established a 1 x 50 m tran-

sect by flagging woody vegetation and by placing wire

flagging in the ground at every 10 meters. Each tran-

sect remained permanent from season to season,

= coal FAS **

A topotype specimen of a Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethedon hubridhti). Bedford County, Virginia.

Spring 1995

4.0 +/- 3.8 (0-8)

3.7 +/- 4.0 (0-9)

3.2 +/- 2.9 (0-7)

7.3 +/- 5.8 (3-17)

4.6 +/- 4.3

except for two that were vandalized during the win-

ter of 1994-1995. These were reestablished in the

exact locations of the original transects in spring

1995. All transects were separated from each other

by a different type of stand, roads, or a distance >100

meters.

Searches for Peaks of Otter salamanders were

conducted in fall 1994 (12 September to 17 October)

and spring 1995 (9 May to 3 June) at night during or

just after rain when the forest floor was wet.

Transects were selected in random order each night

surveys that were conducted and each was walked

slowly by 1-2 people using headlamps. All sala-

manders during the spring sampling season were

released at their capture locations within a few min-

utes; in the fall sampling period they were released

o , -

WAYNE VAN DEVENDER

SCIENTIFIC

*. 5 . 5 =, y =e x 5 SH

= =. ye yo ze q : oes

= TSS ese Se = ss

A Peaks of Otter S

several days later (see below).

During the fall sampling period, we obtained

stomach contents by stomach flushing salamanders

(Fraser 1976). Prey were preserved in alcohol in in-

dividually labeled vials for later analysis. All sala-

manders were released within 5 m of their original

capture locations 2-4 days after collection. In the

laboratory, we identified 96% of prey items to order

and where possible, to family following Borrer, et

al. (1989). Remaining prey were identified to phylum

or class.

Results

Population sizes varied among stand types and be-

tween the fall and spring seasons (Table 1). Numbers

of salamanders ranged from 0 at a recent clearcut site

to 27 at a shelterwood site. In the fall, the average

number of salamanders in recent clearcuts was nearly

half that in the other stand types. However, the wide

variation in numbers of salamanders within stand

types, especially for shelterwood cuts, resulted in no

significant differences (ANOVA, F = 0.35, P = 0.792).

The spring assessment yielded fewer sala-

manders compared to the previous fall season (Table

1). The spring trend in numbers per stand type was

similar to that for the fall sample except for the lower

counts in the shelterwood and older clearcut sites.

The average number of salamanders within mature

stands was higher than those in clearcuts and

shelterwood cuts (Table 1). However, the variation

in numbers of salamanders in stand types did not

differ significantly (ANOVA, F = 1.10, P = 0.372).

We found 949 taxonomically identifiable prey

items in the stomachs of 80 salamanders from 20

sites. Ants (Hymenoptera) and collembolans

(Collembola) made up 54.6% of all individual prey

items in salamander stomachs. Of these, ants com-

prised 32.2% of the sample and collembolans 67.8%.

Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Salamander Populations

alamander (Plethodon hubrichti). Bedford County, Virginia.

WAYNE VAN DEVEND!

We compared the numbers of ants and collembolans

separately among the four stand types with

Kruskal-Wallis tests. There was no significant dif-

ference in the numbers of ants (hard-bodied prey,

Jaeger 1990) consumed among the four stand types

(H = 2.102, df = 3, P = 0.552) (Figure 1a). In contrast,

there was a significant difference among the num-

bers of collembolans (soft-bodied prey, Jaeger 1990)

consumed (H = 16.794, df =3, P < 0.001) (Figure 1b).

Multiple comparison tests showed that salamanders

from mature stands ate more collembolans than sala-

manders from the old clearcuts (z = 2.68, P < 0.05)

and the shelterwood cuts (z = 3.98, P < 0.05).

Mean no. of ants per stomach

recent shelterwood

clearcut clearcut cut

sy ey

Nn ff OO

Mean no. of collembolans per stomach

recent old mature shelterwood

clearcut clearcut cut

Figure 1. Average number of ants (a) and collembolans (b) per

stomach in Peaks of Otter salamanders in four forest stand types.

The distribution of the letters refers to statistical results (see text).

18 Joseph C. Mitchell, et al.

Discussion

Population sizes of terrestrial salamanders are vari-

able and depend on a wide range of factors. These

include soil depth, soil temperature, soil moisture,

aspect, slope angle, underground shelter availabil-

ity, nest site availability, number of surface cover

sites for territories, prey quality and abundance,

predator abundance, and presence of known competi-

tors (Plethodon cinereus) (Buhlmann, et al. 1988;

Dodd 1991; Wicknick 1995). Clearing of the canopy

vegetation and the majority of understory trees, a

common result from clearcutting, changes the physi-

eal environmental characteristics (e.g., soil and log

moisture) of the area (Heatwole 1962; Blymyer and

McGinnes 1977; Dodd 1989, 1991; Dupuis, et al. 1995).

Loss of individual salamanders occurs directly from

logging operations that include road building, the use

of skidders and other heavy equipment, and mechani-

cal site preparation (Dodd 1991). Individuals not di-

rectly impacted by the immediate logging operation

are probably subjected to stresses associated with

reduced or altered prey resources and changes in the

physical characteristics of the soil/litter ecosystem.

We would thus expect to find reduced numbers of

Peaks of Otter salamanders in such areas.

Shelterwood cuts allow a possible solution to

the problems attached to clearcutting. Unfortu-

nately, shelterwood operations that leave a small

basal area (7.e., as few canopy trees) act identically

to clearcuts and they produce similar effects on sala-

manders. Our data show that the numbers of Peaks

of Otter salamanders in shelterwood cuts ranged

from one to 27, the largest range of variation in any

of the stand types. The numbers of Peaks of Otter

salamanders in shelterwood sites were, on average,

10-66% lower than in adjacent mature sites. The

wide variation may be related to the number of

standing trees remaining. Thus, different levels of

shelterwood cuts may have dramatically different

effects on Peaks of Otter salamanders because of the

interaction between the amount of basal area re-

maining and the quality of the habitat present be-

fore and after the operation takes place.

Population sizes in our study were, on aver-

age, consistently higher in mature sites that had not

been logged in 80 or more years when compared to

recent and older clearcuts and shelterwood cuts.

The high variation in number of salamanders within

stand types complicates the interpretation of these

data. The lack of statistical significance does not

SCIENTIFIC

mean that there are no detrimental effects caused

by these logging practices. Such effects may not be

detectable at the population level because of histori-

cal factors (e.g., past logging history and habitat qual-

ity), and differences in relative abundances due to

slope angle and aspect. The size of the impacted area

and its proximity to mature stands containing large

populations may influence the length of time for P.

hubrichti populations to achieve prelogging levels.

The effects of logging may be more clearly elu-

cidated by analysis of diet quality. The quantity of

collembolans consumed by Peaks of Otter sala-

manders was significantly higher in mature stands

than in recent clearcuts and shelterwood cuts. Col-

lembolans are soft-bodied prey (Jaeger 1990) which

presumably pass through P. hubrichti digestive

tracts quickly and with high assimilation efficiency,

as do other soft-bodied prey such as termites in the

congener P. cinereus (Gabor and Jaeger 1995). Dif-

ferences in diet quality among stand types suggests

that there may also be differences in salamander

growth and reproduction. Mature sites, therefore,

appear to offer a higher quality habitat to Peaks of

Otter salamanders than timbered sites because they

presumably have a more intact and functional soil/

litter ecosystem due to the types and quality of

downed woody debris, canopy shelter that affects

the thermal and moisture regime, and higher prey

quality. Results from our forthcoming analyses of

data on prey quality and availability in wet and dry

years will provide a detailed assessment of differ-

ential affects of stand types at the individual level.

Conclusions

The preliminary results of our study allow several

tentative conclusions. Peaks of Otter salamander

populations are not always completely eliminated

from a site within their range by timber operations

of clearcutting and shelterwood cutting. They are

reduced 45-47% by clearcutting and 10-66% by

shelterwood cutting, as compared to populations in

adjacent mature sites. Salamanders in mature sites

may obtain a higher quality diet than those in sites

treated by some form of timber management. Peaks

of Otter salamander populations remain at varying

levels of risk from timber management depending

on the type of harvesting practice used. Such prac-

tices undoubtedly cause small scale geographic

variation in growth, diet, reproduction, and popu-

lation recruitment.

SCIENTIFIC

Acknowledgments

We thank John Bellemore, Fred Huber, Larry Neuhs, and

Glen Szarzinski for facilitating our research in the George

Washington and Jefferson National Forest. Paul Sattler and

Gordon Wilson assisted in the field. For the analysis of

stomach contents, we thank Darryl Felder for laboratory

space and equipment and Caitlin Gabor and Sergio Nates for

references. Ken Dodd provided a thorough review of the

manuscript. This study is funded by grants from the George

Washington and Jefferson National Forest and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Jill Wicknick and Carl Anthony were

also supported, in part, by NSF grant #DEB-9314081 to

Robert G. Jaeger.

References

Ash, A.N. 1988. Disappearance of salamanders from clearcut

plots. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 104:

116-122.

Blymyer, M.J. and McGinnes, B.S. 1977. Observations on

possible detrimental effects of clearcutting on terrestrial

amphibians. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society

13: 79-83.

Borrer, D.J., Triplehorn, C.A., and Johnson, N.F. 1989. An

Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th edition. Saunders

College Publishing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 875 pp.

Buhlmann, K.A., Pague, C.A., Mitchell, J.C., and Glasgow,

R.B. 1988. Forestry operations and terrestrial salamanders:

Techniques in a study of the Cow Knob salamander, Plethodon

punctatus, pp. 38-44 in Szaro, R.C. et al. (editors). Manage-

ment of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in

North America. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report RM-166. 458 pp.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1989. Status of the Red Hills salamander is

reassessed. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 24: 10-11.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1991. The status of the Red Hills salamander,

Phaeognathus hubrichti, Alabama, USA, 1976-1988. Biological

Conservation 55: 57-75.

Dupuis, L.A., Smith, J.N.M., and Bunnell, F. 1995. Relation

of terrestrial-breeding amphibian abundance to tree-stand

age. Conservation Biology 9: 645-653.

Fraser, D.F. 1976. Empirical evaluation of the hypothesis of food

competition in salamanders of the genus Plethodon. Ecology

57: 458-471.

Gabor, C.R. and Jaeger, R.G. 1995. Resource quality affects

the agonistic behaviour of territorial salamanders. Animal

Behaviour 49: 71-79.

Heatwole, H. 1962. Environmental factors influencing local

distribution and activity of the salamander, Plethodon cinereus.

Ecology 43: 460-472.

Effects of Timber Harvesting Practices on Salamander Populations 19

Highton, R. 1986. Plethodon hubrichti. Catalogue of Amer-

ican Amphibians and Reptiles. 393.1-393.2.

Jaeger, R.G. 1990. Territorial salamanders evaluate size and

chitinous content of arthropod prey, pp. 111-126 in Hughes,

R.N. (editor). Behavouwrial Mechanisms of Food Selection.

Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. 886 pp.

Jaeger, R.G. and Barnard, D.E. 1981. Foraging tactics of a

terrestrial salamander: Choice of diet in structurally simple

environments. American Naturalist 117: 639-664.

Pague, C.A. and Mitchell, J.C. 1991. Plethodon hubrichti Thurow,

Peaks of Otter Salamander, pp. 436-437 in Terwilliger, K.

(coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald and

Woodward Publication Co., Blacksburg, Virgina. 672 pp.

Petranka, J.W., Brannon, M.P, Hopey, M.E., and Smith, C.K.

1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation popula-

tions of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology

and Management 67: 135-147.

Petranka, J.W., Eldridge, M.E., and Haley, K.E. 1993.

Effects of timber harvesting on southern Appalachian

salamanders. Conservation Biology 7: 363-370.

Pough, F.H., Smith, E.M., Rhodes, D.H., and Callazo, A.

1987. The abundance of salamanders in forest stands with

different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and

Management 20: 1-9.

Wicknick, J.A. 1995. Interspecific competition and territoriality

between a widespread species of salamander and a species with

alimited range. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southwestern

Louisiana, Lafayatte, Lowisiana. 152 pp.

Joseph C. Mitchell received his Ph.D. from the University

of Tennessee in 1982. Presently, he is an Adjunct Professor

in the School of Continuing Studies at the University of

Richmond and self-employed. Dr. Mitchell has published

over 100 papers and magazine articles, as well as two books.

Dr. Mitchell was the past secretary for the Herpetologists’

League and is now the president-elect.

Jill A. Wicknick received her Ph.D. from the University

of Southwestern Louisiana in 1995. She also holds a

postdoctoral degree from the same institution. Dr: Wicknick

specializes in the behavioral ecology of salamanders. Dr:

Wicknick has published in herpetological journals and the

highly respected journals Animal Behavior and Ecology.

Carl D. Anthony recewed his Ph.D. from the University

of Southwestern Louisiana in 1995. Dr. Anthony is finish-

ing his postdoctoral appointment at USWLA under Robert

Jaeger and will serve as an Assistant Professor at John

Carroll University starting Fall 1996. Carl specializes in

salamander behavioral ecology and parasitology. Dr. An-

thony has published in herpetological journals as well as

the journal Ecology.

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 20-23

Population Biology and Herpetological

Conservation: A Cautionary Note

Andrew Storfer

Center for Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, 101 TH. Morgan Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington,

Kentucky 40506-0225

Abstract

Common endangered species conservation management practices, such as translocations and captive breed-

ing and release of individuals, tend to mix populations. This mixture is most often assumed to be benefi-

cial because it increases effective population size and may also increase genetic variation. However, when

populations are adapted to different local conditions, mixing populations can dilute local adaptation and

could theoretically result in population declines. Resource managers should therefore be careful when the

mixture of populations is considered, particularly in low dispersing species that are prone to local adap-

tation, such as salamanders.

Key Words

Demographics, gene flow, conservation, populations, management, inbreeding depression, amphibian, rep-

tile

Major concerns for small population

management

There are two major concerns in the conservation

of small populations: genetic and demographic fac-

tors. The genetic factors are inbreeding depression

and the loss of genetic variation through genetic

drift. Inbreeding depression threatens and reduc-

ing small populations with the possibility of unmask-

ing recessive deleterious alleles and a reduction in

heterozygosity. Each of these factors can, in turn,

affect individual fecundity and consequently reduce

population growth. When genetic variation is lost,

a population may decline because of its potential in-

ability to track environmental shifts (Frankel and

Soulé 1981; Lande and Barrowclough 1987). Demo-

graphic factors, such as the allee affect, where a

population is so small that individuals have difficulty

finding mates, can also severely affect small popu-

JAMIE K. REASER

COMMENTARY (Scientific)

lations. These factors are becoming more widely

recognized as tantamount to species extinction’s

(Lande 1988; Schemske, et al. 1994).

There is some debate about whether genetic

or demographic factors should be the primary focus

in the study and management of small populations.

However, the conservation programs that deal spe-

cifically with threatened or endangered populations

are often solutions to both problems. These manage-

ment schemes include: movement corridors between

nature reserves, captive breeding and release of in-

dividuals, and translocations of individuals between

populations. All of these strategies tend to enhance

gene flow, or the movement of individuals and the

integration of their genes, among populations.

The issue of Gene Flow

All of these potential solutions, therefore, are based

upon the assumption that gene flow is beneficial to

managed populations. Population genetic theory in-

dicates that gene flow can act as a “creative force”

by maintaining genetic variation and increasing ef-

fective population size and thus combating the nega-

tive consequences of inbreeding depression and de-

mographic stochasticity (Slatkin 1987). However,

there has been little consideration of the potential

detrimental effects that gene flow may have on popu-

lations despite the theory and empirical data to sup-

port such effects. For example, high levels of gene

flow among populations with different environments

(and consequently different selection regimes) can

swamp local adaptation and drive populations to

adapt to the average of local conditions (Wright

1951; Slatkin 1987); therefore, populations are not

well adapted. Associated with this swamping of lo-

cal adaptation can be a reduction in fitness, which is

known as outbreeding depression (Templeton 1986).

In the long-term, gene flow can also preclude sub-

population differentiation and eventually prevent

speciation by maintaining genetic contact (Mayr

1963, 1969).

Along with many examples of the enhancement

of gene flow resulting in the decline of managed popu-

lations (see Greig 1979), there are also examples of

gene flow acting as an evolutionary constraint for

natural amphibian and reptile species. A well-known

reptilian example is the Lake Erie water snake,

Nerodia sipedon. Banded snakes were found to be

more cryptic (and much more common) in the wooded

areas of the mainland surrounding Lake Erie, and

Correspondence, tel: (606) 323-5491, fax: (606) 257-1717, e-mail:

Storf@ceeb.uky.edu

A Cautionary Note on Herpetological Conservation 21

unbanded snakes were more common and cryptic in

the open, rocky areas of the islands (Camin and

Ehrlich 1958; King 1992). Varying degrees of band-

ing have consistently been found in the juvenile is-

land populations, despite its selective disadvantage

(Camin and Ehrlich 1958; King 1987). Observations

of snake dispersal and recent estimates of gene flow

indicated that individuals were dispersing from the

mainland to the islands (King 1987). Quantitative

genetic analyses indicated that color pattern was

largely genetically determined and that selection, in

the absence of gene flow, was strong enough to elimi-

nate the noneryptic (or banded) morph on the islands

(King 1993a). King recently concluded that gene flow

from the mainland population was overwhelming the

effect of selection, which caused an observed decline

in population fitness (King 1987, 1993a, 19930).

One amphibian example comes from research on

the stream-breeding salamander, Ambystoma

barbowri. In some streams that are deep enough to

support permanent pools, A. barbowri larvae face a

major selection pressure that comes from predatory

green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellis. In these streams the

optimal larval strategy entails reduced activity level

to remain inconspicuous and avoid predation (Sih, et al.

1988; Kats, et al. 1988). In other shallow streams, a key

selection pressure is habitat ephemerality, where the

optimal larval strategy entails increased activity level

to feed rapidly in order to reach a large enough size to

metamorphose before the stream dries up (Petranka

and Sih 1987). Recent work has shown that gene flow

is high enough between these two population types to

swamp local adaptation (Storfer, wnpublished data).

Additional data indicate that this gene flow has caused

adaptation to the average of local conditions because

a number of behavioral (7.e., refuge use, escape re-

sponse) and life history assays (7.e., stage at hatching)

associated with predator avoidance have been shown

not to differ significantly between two populations (one

with fish, the other ephemeral) connected by gene flow

(Storfer, wnpublished data). Even so, isolated popula-

tions do differ significantly in those traits associated

with fish avoidance. Therefore, gene flow may be

swamping local adaptation in some populations of A.

barbown and making them potentially more suscep-

tible to fish predation.

Management implications

Gene flow can play a major role in the management

of threatened or endangered species. In particular,

it is important for conservation biologists and re-

source managers to gain a better understanding of

gene flow as a constraining force. That is, there is

22 Andrew Storfer

enough uncertainty about whether gene flow acts as

a disrupter of local adaptation to warrant caution

toward management plans that include the enhance-

ment of interpopulation connection and gene flow.

Gene flow can be a particularly important issue for

amphibian species. For example, salamanders have

typically low levels of gene flow, thus making popu-

lations naturally subdivided (Larsen et al. 1984;

Slatkin 1985). Enhancement of gene flow for conser-

vation purposes may therefore not be warranted

based upon the fact that natural historical associa-

tions may not exist between the populations. It is

therefore important to conduct more studies of gene

flow in amphibian and reptile species, especially

since techniques of measuring gene flow have be-

come more and more accessible (see Slatkin 1985).

Studies of gene flow provide insight into population

structure and historical associations between popu-

lations helping resource managers to avoid mixture

of populations without high levels of gene flow, ex-

hibited by many amphibians species in nature.

It is essential to conduct ecological surveys of

habitat types and major selection pressures that af-

fect species which are management candidates, such

as limiting resources (7.e., prey, space, nest sites, etc.),

major predators, and intrinsic habitat differences

(7.e., climatic differences). These brief surveys would

not slow critical conservation decisions, yet they

would provide extremely valuable information so

that populations that are most ecologically alike

could be those that are mixed (when such manage-

ment may be warranted). Without such data, re-

source managers cannot be sure that mixing popula-

tions will not negatively affect the very populations

that they are trying to save.

References

Camin, J. and Ehrlich, P 1958. Natural selection in water snakes,

(Natria sipedon L.) on islands in Lake Erie. Evolution 12: 504-511.

Frankel, O.H. and Soulé, M.E. 1981. Conservation and Evolution.

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

327 pp.

Greig, J.C. 1979. Principles of genetic conservation in relation to

wildlife management in South Africa. South African Journal of

Wildlife Restoration 9: 57-78.

Kats, L.B., Petrauka, J.W., and Sih, A. 1988. Antipredator

responses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes.

Ecology 69: 1865-1870.

King, R.B. 1993a. Color pattern variation in lake Erie water

snakes: Prediction and measurement of natural selection.

Evolution 47: 1819-1833.

King, R.B. 1993b. Color pattern in lake Erie water snakes:

Inheritance. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 1985-1990.

COMMENTARY (Scientific)

King, R.B. 1992. Lake Erie water snakes revisited: Morph

and age specific variation in relative crypsis. Evolutionary

Ecology 6: 115-124.

King, R.B. 1987. Color pattern polymorphism in the lake Erie

water snake, Nerodia sipedon insularium. Evolution 41:

241-255.

Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological con-

servation. Science 241: 1455-1460.

Lande, R. and Barrowclough, G.F. 1987. Effective population

size, genetic variation, and their use in population manage-

ment, pp. 87-125 in Soulé, M.E. (editor). Viable Populations

for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, United Kingdom. 189 pp.

Larsen, A., Wake, D.B., and Yanev, K.P. 1984. Measuring

gene flow among populations having high levels of genetic

fragmentation. Genetics 106: 293-308.

Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 797 pp.

Mayr, E. 1969. Principle of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-

Hill, New York, New York. 428 pp.

Petranka, J.W. and Sih, A. 1987. Habitat duration, length of the

larval period and the evolution of a complex life cycle of an

amphibian. Hvolution 41: 1347-1356.

Schemske, D. et al. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the

conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 584-

606.

Sih, A., Petranka, J.W., and Kats, L.B. 1988. The dynamics

of prey refuge use: a model and tests with sunfish and

salamander larvae. American Naturalist 132: 463-483.

Slatkin, M. 1985. Gene flow in natural populations. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 393-430.

Slatkin, M. 1987. Gene flow and the geographic structure of

natural populations. Science 236: 787-792.

Templeton, A.R. 1986. Coadaptation and outbreeding depres-

sion, pp. 105-116 in Soulé, M.E. (editor). Conservation

Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 584 pp.

Wright, S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Annals

of Eugenics 15: 323-354.

After a brief stint as a Fish and Wildlife Biologist for the

US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992, Andrew Storfer began

work as a graduate student in the Center for Ecology,

Evolution and Behavior at the University of Kentucky.

Since that time, he has been studying the evolutionary effects

of gene flow in a stream-dwelling salamander that is endemic

to Kentucky. His research incorporates aspects of genetics,

population ecology and behavior in an unusually integrative

project. Andrew expects his Ph.D. in May of 1997.

Volume 1 Number 1 fc 2 7) 1996

Enjoy a full year of o ;

satis ee the CORSERUATION

latest research, news, and

much more. Find out what

you can do to help. We i

need your support. Nowis [a

the time to make a —_

difference.

Subscribe today to the only journal devoted entirely to

herpetological conservation.

AMPHIBIANG REPTILE

CON SERVATION

HE I ven ONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION

ID MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY

I would like to support Amphibian & Reptile Conservation. Please

‘YES! send me a one year subscription (four quarterly issues) at the low

rate of only US$18.00 (US$25.00 outside the US). Send this order

form along with check or money order (made payable to: Amphibian

& Reptile Conservation) to:

Name

ACESS (a Journal Subscription Department

Address Amphibian & Reptile Conservation

fe 2255 North University Parkway No. 15

aay, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA

State/Province

Please list topics that you would like to see in future issues. Other

Zip/Postal Code comments are also welcome.

Country

Telephone

Facsimile (FAX)

E-Mail

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (Fall 1996), 1(1): 24-26

Herpetofauna in the Wildlife Trade and

Nature: On the Difficulty of Estimation

Allen Salzberg

New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, 163 Amsterdam Avenue, Suite 365, New York, New York 10023-5001

Key Words

Population estimation, numbers, wildlife trade, reptiles, amphibians

Abstract

Due to the compleaity of animal

populations both in the wild and

the marketplace, it is difficult for

scientists to estimate the actual

numbers. Obstacles in the mar-

ketplace include: illegal activities,

inefficient estimation procedures,

and understaffed monitoring

agencies. Most experts agree that

the existing numbers often times

are estimated extremely low. All

numbers should be used with cau-

tion. Further research and tighter

controls are called for.

One of the first things we learn as

children is the art of counting. As

adults, counting large numbers is

replaced by complicated estima-

tion techniques. Large numbers of

variables makes estimation diffi-

cult. Nowhere is this more true

than when trying to measure the

trade in reptiles and amphibians

and its impact on wild populations.

Simply, the problem is that

reliable numbers of how many

animals are being sold, collected,

or in the wild do not exist. At

least, numbers which are precise.

Take for example the

seemingly simple act of esti-

mating how many animals are

sold in a given year. Any well run

business has this statistic but is

Correspondence, e-mail: Asalzberg@

aol.com

reluctant to make it public un-

less it is somehow mandated by

law. This is especially true of

some dealers and collectors of

live animals who are afraid of a

sudden surge in a certain species

attracting the unwanted

attention of their competi-

tion, scientists, conserva-

tionists or law enforce-

ment officers (Enge 1994).

So ruling out the pass-

ing of new laws, for example,

how does one find out how

many reptiles and amphib-

ians are sold within the

United States? Currently

the only numbers on pet

herpetofauna in the U.S. that

exist are guesses made by

two recent pet industry sur-

veys (American Pet Prod-

ucts Manufacturers 1994,

American Veterinary Medi-

cal Association 1992). They

estimate in the United

States there are between

one to four million reptiles

and amphibians kept as pets.

Not only is this number

too broad to be usable, sur-

veys failed to ask specific

questions that would supply

data which would be more

useful. They asked pet owners if

they owned a snake or a turtle. If

they had asked, more specifically,

what species owners had then sci-

entists could better estimate how

many amphibians and reptiles are

caught and sold each year and

their impact on wild populations.

One would have better luck

trying to find the numbers of

herpetofauna being sold into and

out of the United States. At least

Greek tortoises from Jordan in their original

shipping crates. The shipper of these turtles had

a CITES permit for a specific number of animals.

But as many CITES shipments do, this shipment

had 43 more animals than allowed, so the excess

animals were confiscated. Due to infrequent

inspections most “padded” shipments go through,

indicating that official CITES numbers do not

reflect actual number traded.

there exists established trade data

bases; LEMIS, or The Law En-

forcement Management Informa-

tion System run by the U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service and a count of

CITES animals traded, put out

COLUMN (Popular)

by England’s

World Conser-

vation Moni-

toring Centre

(WCMC).

LEMIS

shows that the

USS. either im-

ports or ex-

ports up to ten

million live or

dead reptiles

and amphib-

ians per year.

But even here

there are prob-

lems. LEMIS

doesn’t include

all species. The

all mysterious

category of non-CITES reptiles in-

cludes hundreds of thousands of

animals, of unknown species, each

year. Entire families of lizards

such as skinks, agamas and geckos

are only listed by their common

family name. And then certain rep-

tiles, like Graptemys and Apalone

are listed only by genus. (The situ-

ation for these two genera im-

proved last year with the addition

of several species for both). This

forced the wildlife officer entering

the data to list numerous species

and subspecies together, thus los-

ing valuable data. Documents are

most often wrong. The right thing

would be to open each crate and

count each animal, something

which few Fish & Wildlife Inspec-

tors have the time to do unless

they are suspicious of some wrong-

doing (Luiijf 1994).

The WCMC collects the

numbers submitted by CITES

countries of just CITES listed

animals which have been traded.

Though the species listing is more

exact, the problem here is that

WCMC has no enforcement or

checking ability. It’s purely an

honor system. So a local CITES

Baby sliders in a Florida dealer’s sho

6 million of these were shipped out of the US last year alone.

Estimation Difficulties in the Wildlife Trade and Nature 25

i 3

officer who is allowing a lot of

CITES animals out, and doesn’t

want to attract attention, might

just fudge his country’s numbers

(Groombridge 1994).

One common gap that both

these databases share is that

there is no record keeping of the

animals’ ages (Anderson 1994).

When it comes to reptiles, espe-

cially turtles, this is very impor-

tant information since collection

of adults does more harm to a wild

populations than of hatchlings

(Congdon 1994).

Counting is also a problem

when keeping track of wild popu-

lations. Examples exist of popula-

tion studies which have proven in-

accurate because they didn’t take

into account the animal’s natural

habits. This resulted in scientists

looking for animals where they

were least likely to find them (Gib-

bons 1993).

We also know that popula-

tions often naturally increase or

decrease tremendously, and only

long-term population studies take

that into account and more accu-

rately measure a population’s

trend (Gibbons 1993).

p awaiting shipment. It is estimated that over

Another

problem is who

does the col-

lecting. My fa-

vorite example

of this is a sto-

ry about Caret-

tochelys inculp-

ta. It originally

was believed

to be a very

rare species. It

turned out that

the scientists

who first dis-

covered this

animal were to-

tally dependent

on natives to

collect their

specimens. They asked the natives

to bring back any turtle they

caught when they would go

upriver. The problem was that the

natives like to eat Carettochelys

and so gave the scientists only the

bad tasting turtles (Pritchard 1993).

Now does this mean that

these numbers are useless? No.

Even if the numbers are incom-

plete they are useful. Most herpe-

tologists believe the numbers are

way too low, (Enge 1994) describ-

ing live animal shipments that are

smuggled through customs with

invoices listing the boxes’ con-

tents as light bulbs and so they

are never seen by Wildlife officers

(Luiijf 1993).

And like the canary in the

mines, LEMIS and WCMC data

can act as a warning to trade ac-

tivities, excessive or illegal.

Large numbers, even of just liz-

ards or softshells, suddenly being

reported can indicate to conserva-

tionists and scientists that further

study or action is necessary.

Recently, Togo and Ghana

was reporting to WCMC an in-

credible amount of reptiles being

exported, more than those small

26 Allen Salzberg

countries could possibly collect.

This tipped off wildlife officials to

investigate. They discovered that

Togo and Ghana was laundering

animals illegally collected from

other countries (Ventura 1994).

But still we have to figure

out how best to estimate amphib-

ians and reptiles, both collected

and traded (these two numbers

are usually different because ani-

mals do die in transit, or are kept

for personal use by the collector).

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

needs to be encouraged to im-

prove LEMIS soit reflects the bio-

logical and natural history of the

animals being counted. Every

shipment should be opened and

counted. And any animal traded

should be on that system. Herpe-

tologists and conservationists

need to conduct their own surveys

of what is being sold in pet shops.

As for counting amphibians

int

A typical storage set up for small snakes

at a Florida dealer. A common marketing

technique of animal dealers is to under-list

the amount of animals available in their

mail order catalogs—by as much as 90 %.

This creates the illusion of rarity and thus

boosts demand for the animal.

and reptiles in the wild, an excel-

lent reference is Measuring and

Monitoring Biological Diversity:

Standard Methods for Amphib-

ians (Heyer et al. 1994). Though I

look forward to an edition on rep-

tiles, this book, with its detailed

studies of different collection and

recording techniques, should give

anyone doing population studies

on reptiles help on how to formu-

late a useful, comparable, popula-

tion study.

Simply: You can’t save what

you don’t know you have.

References

Anderson, Mary. 1994. Personal Com-

munication. September. Independent

Researcher, Roanoke, Virginia.

American Pet Products Manufacturers

Association. 1994. 1994 National Pet

Owners Survey, pp. 180-197. American

Pet Products Manufacturers Asso-

ciation, Scarsdale, New York.

American Veterinary Medical Asso-

ciation. 1992. The Veterinary Service

Market for Companion Animals, 1992,

pp. 103-106. Center for Information

Management, American Veterinary Med-

ical Association, Scaumburg, Illinois.

120 pp.

Bright, E. 1994. An analysis of U.S. Fish

& Wildlife reptile and amphibian num-

bers in their LEMIS system. Unpub-

lished manuscript.

Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. 1991. A

Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphib-

ians Eastern/Central North America.

3rd Edition. Peterson Field Guide

Series. Houghton Mifflin Company,

Boston. 450 pp.

Congdon, J.D., Dunham, A.E., and Van

Loben Sels, R.C. 1993. Delayed sexual

maturity and demographics of Blanding’s

turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Impli-

cations for conservation and manage-

ment on longlived organisms. Conser-

vation Biology (2): 387-399.

Enge, K.M. 1994. Herptile Use and

Trade in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh

Water Commission Nongame Wildlife

COLUMN (Popular)

Program Final Performance Report,

Tallahasse, Florida. 102 pp.

Gibbons, J.W. 1993. Measuring declines

and natural variation in populations of

turtles: spatial lessons from longterm

studies. Presentation at Conservation,

Restoration, and Management of

Tortoises and Turtles an International

Conference. July, Purchase, New York.

Groombridge, L. 1994. Personal Com-

munications. World Conservation

Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United

Kingdom.

Heyer, W. R., Donnelly, M.A., MeDiar-

mid, R.W., Hayek, L.C., and Fraser,

M.S. 1994. Measuring and Monitoring

Biological Diversity: Standard Methods

for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, DC.

Luiijf, W. 1993. The role of CITES in

controlling tortoise trade. Presentation at

Conservation, Restoration, Management

of Tortoises and Turtles and Interna-

tional Conference. July, Purchase, New

York.

Pritchard, Dr. PRC.H. 1993. Personal

Communications. Vice Preseident, Flor-

ida Audubon Society, Casseberry,

Florida.

Ventura, J. 1994. Personal Communica-

tion. Supervisory Wildlife Inspector,

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Port of

New York, John F. Kennedy Airport.

Warwick, C. 1994. Personal Commun-

ications. People’s Trust for Endangered

Species, Surrey, England.

Allen Salzberg’s interests in environ-

mental issues began back in 1965 after

he saw his first wild turtle. Mr: Salzberg

has written numerous articles on the

environment for magazines including

Health, Outside, and The New York

Times. Recently, he completed a report

titled The Preliminary Report: Live

Freshwater Turtle & Tortoise Trade in

the United States for the US Humane

Society and Humane Society Interna-

tional. He is presently working on wp-

dating and expanding that report to

include all reptiles. With his wife, Anita

Baskin Salzberg, he has cowritten a

children’s book on turtles for “all those

kids like me back in 65.”

NEWS and NOTES

ANNOUNCEMENTS

New Organization: African

Herpetofaunal Biodiversity Programme

(AHBP)

The AHBP is a new and developing

programme designed to identify, assess,

inventory, and monitor conservation areas

in Africa and Madagascar. Since herpe-

tofaunas’ remains much neglected with

only the crocodilians and, to a degree, the

chelonians receiving major attention rep-

tiles and amphibians will be a major focus

of the AHBP In order to proceed further,

itis necessary to elect a coordinating com-

mittee, find a home for the programme (at

present, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa),

and to prepare initiatives to secure start-

up funding and project linkages. Help is

also needed in setting up a permanent list

server site to promote communication

between collaborators, adding new mem-

bers to the administrating committee, and

assisting with other projects. All those in-

terested or who can help are urged to con-

tact Lynn Raw, PO Box 200, Merrivale,

3291, South Africa. Tel: +27-331-

460796, fax: +27-331-460895, e-mail:

Raw @zoology.unp.ac.za. Presently, e-mail

and a mailing list (AFRIHERP-L) are

being used to aid communication between

AHBP members. To subscribe to the mail-

ing list send this e-mail message

(subscribe AFRIHERP-L “Your name”)

to: listproc@wemc.org.uk. To post mes-

sages to the list send them to:

Afriherp@wemce.org.uk. The list adminis-

trator is Lynn Raw. The AHBP “Interim”

Committee members are: Lynn Raw

(South Africa), Chairman (coordinating

facilitator); Ivan Ineich (France), Secre-

tary; Craig Hassapakis (United States),

Public Relations Officer; Preston

Hardison (United States), Data Manage-

ment Officer; Neil Burgess (Denmark),

Mapping; Michael Lambert (United King-

dom), Project Coordinator, and Martin

Kundrat (Slovak Republic) Project Coor-

dinator.

Dr. lan R. Swingland named Professor

of Conservation Biology

Dr. Ian R. Swingland has been named

Professor and Chair of Conservation Bi-

ology at the Durrell Institute of Conser-

vation and Ecology (DICE), University of

Kent, Canterbury, England. Following

many years of field work on Aldabra gi-

ant tortoises, Dr. Swingland was also the

Director of the First World Congress of

Herpetology, held in Canterbury in 1989,

instrumental in the formation of the

IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater

Turtle Specialist group, and has worked

for the past six years on the development

of DICE. DICE now has an international

program of postgraduate training in con-

servation biology, drawing students from

around the world for a unique Masters of

Science (M.Sc.) degree in Conservation

Biology.

MEETINGS

Third World Congress of Herpetology,

2-10 August, 1997

For more information contact: c/o Czech

Medical Association, J.E. Purkyne, Con-

gress Department, PO Box 88, Sokolska

31, 120 26, Praha 2, Czech Republic. Tel:

(++42-2) 296889 (or) (+ +42-2) 249151195,

fax: (++42-2) 294610 (or) (++42-2)

24216836. The web site address is: http://

www.gli.cas.cz/herpet/

Conference to be Hosted in Vietnam:

Conservation and Biodiversity of

Amphibians and Reptiles of Tropical

Rain Forests

The proposed site for the conference is

Hanoi, Vietnam, sometime in 1998. Those

interested should contact one of the fol-

lowing: Dr. Harold Heatwole, Department

of Zoology, Box 7617, North Carolina

State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

27695 USA. Tel: (919) 515-2741, fax: (919)

515-5327; Dr. Natalia Ananyeva, Depart-

ment of Herpetology, Zoological Institute,

St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. E-mail:

any@zisp.spb.su; Dr. Cao Van Sung, Insti-

tute of Ecology and Biological Resources,

Nghia Do, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel:

361 440, fax: (844) 361 196, e-mail:

sung@iebr.ac.vn

CALL FOR INFORMATION

Live Reptile and Amphibian Trade

Database

Information for a database for analysis is

being gathered on the trade in live rep-

tiles and amphibians. The purpose of the

database is to monitor the live trade and

issue occasional reports and suggestions

on how to improve the trade, making it

more humane and environmentally

sound (one recent use was to get the

North American box turtle listed as an

CITES II species). Notes of anecdotes,

stories of people handling herpetofauna

for the live animal trade would be use-

ful additions to the database. These in-

clude copies of articles or papers on the

trade’s effect on wild populations, sto-

ries of arrests, or visits to turtle farms.

Include other topics which are relevant,

whether favorable for the trade or not.

Farming of amphibians and reptiles and

sustainable harvesting stories are also

appreciated, as well as suggestions of

how to improve the trade. Send infor-

mation to: Allen Salzberg, 6787 Booth

Street 5B, Forest Hills, New York

11375. Tel/fax: (718) 275-3307, e-mail:

Asalzberg@aol.com

BOOKS RECEIVED

Murphy, J.B., Adler, K., and Collins, J.T. (editors). 1994.

Captive Management and Conservation of Amphibians

and Reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and

Reptiles, Ithaca, New York. 408 pp.

Musgrave, R.S. and Mary A.S. 1993. State Wildlife Laws

Handbook. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville,

Maryland. 840 pp.

Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R., and Eggler, P

1993. The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Aus-

tralian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra, ACT. 254

pp.

Shine, R. 1991. Australian Snakes: A Natural History.

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 223 pp.

Roughgarden, J. 1995. Anolis Lizards of the Caribbean:

Ecology, Evolution, and Plate Tectonics. Oxford Uni-

versity Press, New York. 200 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. and Cohen, N.W. 1995.A Natural History

of Amphibians. Princeton University Press, Princeton,

New Jersey. 316 pp.

Hudson, R., Alberts, A., Ellis, S., and Byers, O. 1994. Con-

servation Assessment and Management Plan for

Iguanidae and Varanidae. IUCN/SSC Conservation

Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota.

IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC). 1993. The World Zoo Con-

servation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria

of the World in Global Conservation. Chicago Zoologi-

cal Society, Brookfield, Illinois. 76 pp.

Wiese, R.J. and Hutchins, M. 1994. Species Survival

Plans: Strategies for Wildlife Conservation. Ameri-

can Zoo and Aquarium Association, Wheeling, West Vir-

ginia. 64 pp.

Slavens, F. and Slavens, K. 1994. Reptiles and Amphib-

ians in Captivity, Breeding-Longevity and Inventory,

Current January 1, 1994. Slaveware, Seattle, Washing-

ton. 532 pp.

Hunter, Jr., M.L., Albright, J., and Arbuckle, J. (editors).

1992. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Maine. Maine Ag-

ricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 838. 188 pp.

EDITORIAL

LITERATURE

Cree, A., et al. 1995. Reproduction of a rare New Zealand reptile, the tuatara Sphe-

nodon punctatus, on rat-free and rat-inhabited islands. Conservation Biology 9(2):

373-383.

Kiesecker, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. 1995. Synergism between UV-B radiation and a

pathogen magnifies amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences (USA) 92(24): 11049-11052.

Durbin, J., Rajafetra, V, Reid, D., and Razandrizanakanirina, D. 1996. Local people and

project Angonoka—conservation of the ploughshare tortoise in north-western Mada-

gascar. Oryx 30(2): 113-120.

Kaiser, H. 1994 The conservation status of Lesser Antillean frogs. Herpetological

Natural History 2(2): 41-56,

Daugherty, C.H., Patterson, G.B., and Hitehmough, R.A. 1994. Taxonomic and conser-

vation review of New Zealand herpetofauna. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4):

317-323.

Brown, D. 1994. Transfer of Hamilton’s frog, Leiopelma hamiltoni, to a newly cre-

ated habitat on Stephen’s Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4):

425-430.

Towns, D.R. 1994. The role of ecological restoration in the conservation of Whitaker’s

skink (Cyclodina whitakeri), arare New Zealand lizard (Lacertilia: Scincidae). New

Zealand Journal of Zoology 21(4): 457-471.

Herpetological Conservation. This new publication is a book-length monograph se-

ries on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles. HC is published approximately once

per year and will concentrate on a single subject. For information contact Paul Stephen

Corn, Editor, National Biological Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Insti-

tute, 709 East Beckwith Avenue, PO Box 8089, Missoula, Montana USA. Tel: (406) 542-

4190, fax: (406) 543-2663, e-mail: Steve_Corn@nbs.gov.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A great tribute must be given to the early support I received for the journal from sub-

scribers, editors, advisors, and many others. Of great support were Jamie K. Reaser,

David Galbraith, Andrew T. Holyeross, Bill Love, Kraig Adler, Ken Dodd, Russell

Mittermeier, Michael Hutchins, Aaron Bauer, Allison Alberts, Jonathan Ballou, Joseph

T. Collins, Carl Gans, Howard Lawler, Roy McDiarmid, George B. Rabb, Hobart Smith,

Lee Fitzgerald, Steven Garber, Julian Lee, Joe Mitchell, Henry Mushinsky, Christo-

pher Raxworthy, Nelson da Silva, Andrew Storfer, Robert Wiese, Frank Slavens, Michael

and Patrica Fogden, Anders Rhodin, Karen Toepfer, Robert Hansen, John Baker, Eric

Thiss, Lynn Raw, Martin Kundrat, Allen Salzberg, Dave Adams, Amy Stout, Sam Ashely,

Dave Owens, Ian Straw, Bret Bottger, and early subscribers, too many to list here.

Needed information and help have always been provided by the excellent staffs at the

IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), International Species

Inventory System (ISIS), and World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). A

special thanks is extended to Cornell University Press, Princeton University Press,

and American Graphics for all their help. Helpful assistance was provided by Brigham

Young University particularly the Zoology Department, Computer Services, the Monte

L. Bean Life Science Museum, the Harold B. Lee Library (HBLL), and the HBLL

Interlibrary Loan Office. Individuals from Brigham Young University I would like to

personally thank for there help and encouragement are Richard Tolman, Hal Black,

Clayton White, Jack Sites, Dr. Shiozawa, Nathan Smith, Wilmer Tanner, Doug Cox, Ri-

chard Jensen, Richard Soares, Roger Flick, John Higginbotham, and Stan Peters. Spe-

cial thanks goes to Walter “Wally” Tordoff, III at California State University at

Stanislaus for help when I was a young bubbling herpetologist. A tribute is given in honor

to the late Michael Parks of Ceres High School, Ceres, California. His friendship, humor,

and enthusiasm for education and the sciences will always be remembered. I would also

like to acknowledge some friendships which have always been there when I needed them:

Scott Pittel, Mark Adkison, Dave Pennock, Sally Midgley, Michael Jensen, M.D., Troy

Rowan, David Owens, Richard Soares and Tony Marren. The idea to publish a journal

and technical support was provided by Jay Vilhena. Without Jay I would not be publish-

ing this journal. At a very critical time the project would have never been completed

without the help, support, and friendship of Carin Young. Special thanks go to the fol-

lowing individuals who have exhibited a special effort to myself individually and in this

project: Jamie K. Reaser, Bob Wiese, Jay Vilhena, Troy Rowan, David Owens, Tony

Marren, Richard Soares, and Carin Young. Last but not least I would like to acknowl-

edge my parents Anthony and Frances Hassapakis and my two brothers Steve and Greg

Hassapakis. Thank you all for your unfailing support and friendship.

EDITORIAL

Finally, I am proud to announce the first issue of Amphibian & Rep-

tile Conservation!!! The work has been under construction now for

over 1 1/2 years with many improvements and refinements being

added. It is my hope that this publication will become a valuable

tool for conservation and in educating people about the need to pre-

serve our herptofauna heritage.

It was my vision to publish a journal about amphibian and reptile con-

servation that would appeal to as many people as possible while consist-

ing of the best science available. In the past this would have meant pub-

lishing a science journal with limited appeal in the private sector. I have

always believed that both could be accomplished together, a readable

science journal that the public could better understand and enjoy. I think

Ihave accomplished this vision by creating a journal style with elements

of a magazine (color photos and pleasing graphic design), scientific infor-

mation (original data, scientific article format, and respected science au-

thors), and a newsletter type section for all other useful information. The

result will be a stronger more educated public who have more time, money,

and enthusiasm to contribute to conservation; something that is often in

short supply in the conservation community. The professional scientific

conservation community is a limited resource and is often strained to its

limits. Conservation is too important of an area to limit to these hard

working individuals. There is power in numbers. By increasing our read-

ership and their education we will have a greater impact toward helping

others do something about the conservation efforts of amphibians and rep-

tiles. Let’s not take a back seat to our commitment to educating ourselves

and others about what is being done in the field of herpetological conser-

vation. Make a commitment now to become a subscriber to ARC and con-

tribute by writing articles, reporting your research finds, loaning your

prized photographs, and telling others of this exciting new venue for con-

servation. What better way is there than this to show your commitment

and support for reptile and amphibian conservation?

All of the good will and individual effort in the world will not make

ARC asuccess without your help, support, and valuable feedback. What

is being done in your part of the world to conserve its herpetofauna? Why

not drop ARC a line and tell us. Now with computers and the Internet

ARCis only an e-mail away!

It is my hope that through Amphibian & Reptile Conservation we can

all unite and make a big difference toward the conservation efforts of am-

phibians and reptiles worldwide, as well as all life.

With sincere hopes,

Craig Hassapakis

DEDICATION

This journal is dedicated in honor of my grandparents, Alla Mae “Mona” and

Lawton Lail “Grandad” Hendricks. Our rides through the countryside, their spe-

cial friendship and unfailing support for all my projects will never be forgotten.

Lawton Lail “Grandad” Alla Mae “Mona”

Hendricks Hendricks

(1911 - 1976) (1914- )

MT. HOOD, OREGON, USA (1941)

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE

CONSERVATION

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE WORLDWIDE PRESERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILIAN DIVERSITY

Scope

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (ARC) is an international peer reviewed journal

devoted to the worldwide preservation and management of amphibian and reptilian

diversity.

Goals

The primary goals of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation are to:

+ Provide a forum for scientists and others to publish data pertinent to amphib-

ian and reptile conservation.

+ Report on herpetological conservation efforts worldwide.

+ Assure the protection of all taxa of amphibians and reptiles, particularly those

= - Seon, need ete

on the’ ‘numbers of animals \ Gndividuals, populations, and species) in

“captivity, the witdlife Aili he tS

maatiee for S abiciion which inform, exe Feport new iscoyeries, offer: solutions,

present new information, and summarize rese ch) mpiemaand areas of interest.

Manuscripts may cover any aspect of amphibian an biology with an emphasis.

on conservation. ARC is particularly interested in ma aeene dealing with topical re-

views, zoo biology, population status (both in captivity and nature), rare, threatened,

and endangered species, human exploitation, resource management, , geographic dis-

tribution, herpetofaunal diversity, area checklists, exploration and discovery, allareas

of conservation biology (from such topics as economics and politics to held biology and .

techniques) and articles which relate animals to specific geographical locations and

countries (¢.g., The Endangered Frogs of Costa Rica and The Lizard Fatigaigitlads>

gascar with Particular Emphasis on Threatened Species). 3 {

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ON EDITORIAL AND

ADVISORY BOARDS

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is interested in attracting qualified individuals to

participate on the editorial review or advisory boards. Please send Curriculum Vita,

list of publications, and a list of other offices and/or positions held to the editor for

consideration at 2255 North University Parkway No. 15, Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA.

WRITER'S GUIDELINES AND MANUSCRIPT

PREPARATION

General Information

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is intended for a wide readership from the ama-

teur to the professional. The study of conservation addresses a tremendous variety

of disciplines and occupations, experts in one area may not be knowledgeable in others.

Contributors are therefore encouraged to present their subject matter in simple, lu-

cid, and concise terms, appealing to amateur herpetologists, the general public, and sci-

entists. Articles should include abstracts, explanatory text (especially statistical and

mathematical methodologies), full references, ample photographs, tables, figures, dia-

grams, and other illustrations to help elucidate the text, whenever possible. All contri-

butions should be submitted to Amphibian & Reptile Conservation exclusively. If

accepted, papers and all other contributions become copyright of Amphibian & Rep-

tile Conservation. Full horizontal journal size measures 8 x 10.75 inches.

Comments

Comments are invited to ensure that Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is the best

journal possible. Feedback is very important. We appreciate submission of comments,

suggestions for improvements and/or corrections.

Publication Categories

All contributions should be designed to one of the following categories (see below

Feature and Scientific Articles, Departments [Short Communications, Commentar-

ies, Book Reviews, News and Notes - Brief Reports, Announcements, Meetings, Calls

for Information, Books Received, Literature, and Forthcoming], Editorial, and Col-

umn) for publication. However, new sections to the journal are encouraged. Proposals

should be discussed with the editor directly.

FEATURE AND SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

Feature and Scientific Articles and other submissions listed in the Departments sec-

tion should follow the submission format listed below, unless otherwise stated. Fea-

Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation 29

ture articles maybe popular science articles and reviews. Scientific articles include sci-

entific contributions which report new information based on original research and

reviews summarizing areas of research. Please label contributions as Feature, Sci-

entific, Review, Commentary, Popular or combination (7.e., Review [Popular]) in the

upper left hand corner of the title page. All articles should also contain the following

information and conform to the format below.

Title Page

The title page of the manuscript should consist of a single page and should include the

complete title of the paper; the names of the authors and their affiliations, address (in-

clude extra 4 digit zip code e.g., 94305-1901), fax and telephone numbers as well as e-

mail addresses (when available. If no e-mail is available please indicate by stating “No

e-mail available”); a short title (no more than 40 characters including spaces) to be used

as arunning header on top of nontitled pages; and the name of the person to whom edi-

torial correspondence, page proofs, and reprints requests should be sent. Please write

the total word count of the article in the upper right hand corner.

Abstract

A brief abstract (generally not exceeding 5% of the length of the text), intelligible without

reference to the main body of the text, should be provided to appear at the head of the

paper. At least six key words and/or phrases (to be used for subject matter indexing)

should appear on a separate line directly following the abstract.

Table of Contents

Provide a table of contents.

Manuscripts

Authors submitting manuscripts should send three paper copies, double-spaced, and

on one side of standard letter-sized paper, 21.5 x 28 centimeters (8.5 x 11 inches).

Manuscripts : should) peaubmitted i in electronic media and postal mailed along with the

the “Internet” (on Internet Submissions).

i satus of Amphibian & rele. Conservation for examples of style. For

further as tance on the proper ‘style and formatof manuscripts (not described in these

- guidelines), consult Scientific: Style and Format: Dhe CBE Manual for Authors, Edi-

tors, and. Publishers (6th edition, 1994, Council of ‘Biology Editors, Inc., 11 South

_-LaSalle, Suite’ 1400, ‘Chicago, ‘linols ss} Welk *

Submissions — Es

___ Final versions sof all! submissions to the Foumnal Brent be on3.1/2 Siac computer disks

or Iomega Zip disks suitable for IBM compatible computers. Please label all disks with

_ the name of the Software (e.g., Microsoft Word 6.0). ASCII is preferred but MicroSoft

Wor

“Submission of electronicillustrations i is strongly encouraged, but not required (see Te

lustrations, Bap All authors receive one copy of the journal free. ~~

“BE

Internet Submissions i y

The Internet provi¢ es.the, uickest method for subitting’ Simian PARC. es: ;

pecially near deadlines. This i is also the preferred method ito communicate direetly with

the editor, submit pr: oposals, and quickly? review. manuscripts for possible publication.

Pictures can also be retrieved over the Internet as as rencoded files.) , These are then de-

coded by the editor for reviewing, Detoder/encoder programs Ge WINCODE) can

be downloaded to your computeras shareware (free of charge) via | the Internet. Please

contact a computer consultant-or the. editor for specific details on-how'to s send and

retrieve encoded internet messages: eg mnder, what conditions to make Sbgigrrange-

ments.

Text ’

Regular articles should not exceed 10 manuscript} pages. RéviewScan be up to 20 pages =

in length and should include an introduction and conclusions:

will be considered, however,’ and the editor should be contacted to discuss s possible.

publication, for articles longer than the above standards. 3) Submission ions less fhan 4 pages >

are categorized as aShort Communication. The News and ote setin should only

include essential.in formation i in a succinet: fashion usually less,than nena Resiilts

and information should be presented i in clear format using photographs.

ustrations,

and tables to enhance the text whenever possible. A statement of compliance with the

guidelines for the use of animals in research, as published in Animal Behavior, Volume

43, 1992, must be provided in appropriate cases. For field research consult Pisani, G.R.

et al. 1987. Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field Re-

search published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Nonstand-

ard abbreviations should be kept to a minimum and defined in the text. Vernacular names

can be used where appropriate, with the scientific name given in italics following the

common name of the first mention of the species. All measurements should be spelled

out on the first usage, with the abbreviation in parentheses, and the abbreviated form

used thereafter. Use the metric system unless English measurements are clearly more

appropriate (then give metric equivalents in parentheses). Indicate the approximate

placement of figures, tables, photographs, and maps on the manuscript. Formatting

such as bolding should be kept to a minimum and, if done, follow examples from the jour-

nal. Double-space lines between sentences. USE ONLY ONE SPACE AFTER ALL

PUNCTUATION MARKS SUCH AS PERIODS AND SEMICOLONS. DO NOT

hyphenate on line breaks (e.g., DO NOT justify the margins). Footnotes should be

avoided. Use italics for et al., i.e., ande.g. and scientific names of species. Use the word

“herpetofauna” in place of “herps.” Careful attention should be paid to accents and dia-

critical marks on foreign words. Add them by hand if not available on the typewriter

or computer.

‘and Word Perfect/are also aceeptable formats to submit manuscripts. Authors

__shétild:feeltree | to.suggest at least one referee qualified to judge the work objectively. \ ~

ortsJonger than'20 pages ~

30 Writer’s Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation

References

References should follow the Harvard system. When more than two authors are ref-

erenced in the text et al. follows the name of the first author, for example (Mittermeier

et al. 1996). Use initials for all names in the references except surnames leaving no

spaces between letters. Italicize book and journal titles using the language and spelling

of the original and give English translations, in square parentheses when needed. With

hard to obtain papers listed in the references, include contact information for obtain-

ing copies. List total page numbers for books at the end of the reference. For examples

of the format used see below.

Lande, R. and Barrowclough, G.H. 1987. Effective population size, genetic varia-

tion, and their use in population management, pp. 87-125 in Soulé, M_E. (editor).

Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, United Kingdom. 189 pp.

Mittermeier, R.A., Werner, T.B., and Lees, A. 1996. New Caledonia—a conser-

vation imperative for an ancient land. Oryx 30(2): 104-112.

Stebbins, R.C. and Cohen, N.W. 1995. A Natural History of Amphibians.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 316 pp.

Acknowledgments

Limit acknowledgments to individuals and organizations who contributed directly to

researching and funding. Keep them as brief as is consistent with courtesy.

Author Biography

A brief biography of the author is included at the end of each article. Information pro-

vided should be limited to titles, academic positions, employment, past and recent re-

search projects, and details containing brief descriptions of the authors and the over-

all research projects within which the published work has been carried out. This will

provide readers with an outline of the structure and objectives of the research teams,

or groups responsible for the work.

Correspondence

Designate a correspondence author to whom all communications concerning the paper

should be directed. List the most up-to-date telephone and fax numbers along with an

e-mail address. Promptly notify the editor if any of these numbers should change before

publication.

Illustrations

Illustrations (line drawings, diagrams and other illustrations such as Photographs,

Tables, and Figures—see below) should be submitted as both electronic versions and

hard copy with author’s name and figure number attached. These works should be

suitable for 50% reduction without loss of clarity. Exceptions are photographs where

90% reduction is acceptable. Submission of electronic illustrations are highly encour-

aged, but are not an absolute requirement. Submit illustrations on computer disk as

separate files from the text in EPS, WMF or DXF format or as quality hard copies.

Always include a printed copy of all electronic illustrations along with descriptive cap-

tions. It is suggested that individuals submitting electronic work contact the editor in

advance for more detailed instructions and clarification of techniques. Disks will usu-

ally not be returned.

Photographs

Halftone photographs (both color and black and white) should be submitted as 35 mm

slides or larger (large format transparencies 7.e¢., 4 x 5 inches). If slides are not avail-

able glossy prints should be selected of a large size if possible, e.g., 8 x 10 inches. Details

about the photographs (place, time, date, and description) should accompany all pictures.

A hard copy description of the photographs should be typed consecutively on separate

sheets of paper and also sent to the editor on a computer disc. If identifiable human

subjects are used in photographs a signed letter of consent must be included.

Tables

Tables must be typed double-spaced without vertical rules and should not duplicate any

material in the text or illustrations. Tables should be tab delimited using such programs

as Microsoft Notepad, Word, or Excel, and submitted in electronic media. Provide all

tables with complete but brief headings. Type them on separate sheets of paper, num-

ber them consecutively within the text, and include them on a computer disk.

Figures

Type figure legends double-spaced on consecutively numbered separate pages and

include them on a computer disk.

Proofs

Proofs will be sent whenever possible but because of publishing deadlines this may not

always be possible and/or necessary. After acceptance, papers may be edited to en-

hance clarity, The senior author will be notified of significant changes in content or style.

Page Charges

Page charges of $35 per page will be assessed for publication costs for those who have

grants or institutional support, $10 per page for others. This fee will be waived if a state-

ment is signed indicating that neither there is no institutional support for publication

and/or that $10 per page cannot be paid. Charges will be collected by the publisher. An

author's inability to pay will in no way influence acceptance of the paper for publication.

Offprints

The publisher will supply the author with 25 free offprints. An offprint order form will

be included with the page proofs and authors may order further offprints. For pricing,

please contact the editor.

DEPARTMENTS

Not all sections of the Departments section will appear in each issue of Amphibian &

Reptile Conservation and new sections will be added as warranted.

Short Communications

Papers shorter than four pages should be prepared as Short Communications.

Commentaries

Commentaries are explanatory or illustrative, systematic series of comments or

opinions based on critical notes or observations.

Book Reviews

Book Reviews are critical evaluations on books. Publishers requesting that their book(s)

be reviewed should contact the editor. Whenever possible two copies should be sent with

a written request to review. Persons wanting to review books should contact the editor

with a proposal.

News and Notes

News and Notes is the newsletter section of the journal. Submissions should be con-

fined to timely news of interest to the herpetological conservation community. These

contributions will be placed in one of the following subsections.

Brief Reports

Brief Reports should be fashioned after the “Briefly Section” in the Journal of

the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (London), Orya.

Announcements

Announcements are important timely reports of activities in the herpetological

conservation community and should be reported here.

Meetings

Meetings includes references to upcoming conferences, symposiums, and

workshops.

Calls for Information

Calls for Information is a service provided to researchers. It is intended to elicit

contributions from others and to further the effort.

Books Received

Books Received is a listing of books received for review . It will include full bib-

liographic data and (sometimes) brief comments.

Literature

Literature cites important works which directly (or indirectly) relate to the

conservation of amphibians and reptiles. Recent literature is most often listed

but other important literature such as classical works may be also included.

Forthcoming

Forthcoming brings attention to future articles solicited or in press in Amphib-

ian & Reptile Conservation.

EDITORIAL

The editorial is a topical subject commentary which is usually written by the editor, On

oceasion, guest editorials may be solicited.

COLUMN

Columns are assigned by the editor. Potential contributors should contact the editor

for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT POLICIES

Advertisements are subject to approval by the editor. The editor reserves the right

to refuse any advertisement. Rates are available upon request from the editor.

BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE

All communications should be directed to:

Craig Hassapakis, editor and publisher

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION

2255 North University Parkway No. 15

Provo, Utah 84604-7506 USA

E-mail: ARC@byu.edu

A Natural History of

Amphibians

ROBERT C. STEBBINS AND NATHAN W. COHEN

This is a book for all readers who want to learn about amphib-

ians. It draws on many years of classroom teaching, laboratory

experience, and field observation by the authors. Robert Stebbins

and Nathan Cohen lead readers on a fascinating odyssey as they

explore some of nature’s most interesting creatures, interspersing their

own observations throughout the book.

A Natural History of Amphibians can serve as

a textbook for students and independent learners,

as an overview of the field for professional scientists

and land managers, and as an engaging introduction

for general readers.

Amphibian populations are being rapidly decimated around the globe, largely due to the encroach-

ment of humans on amphibian habitats and from growing human-caused environmental pollution,

discussed at length in the final chapter. The authors focus our attention on the “natural history” of

amphibians worldwide and emphasize their interactions with their environments over time: where they

live; how they reproduce; how they have been affected by evolutionary processes; what factors will deter-

mine their destinies over time. Through the experienced eyes of the authors, we come to see and under-

stand the place of amphibians in the natural world.

Cloth: $29.95 ISBN 0-691-03281-5

eS,

Lizard Ecology

Historical and Experimental Perspectives

EDITED BY

LAURIE J. VITT AND ERIC R. PIANKA

In this rich collection, leading lizard ecologists demonstrate the

utility of the phylogenetic approach in understanding the evolution of

morphology, physiology, behavior, and life histories. Lizards have been

the subject of reciprocal transplant experiments and of manipulations of

resource availability, habitat structure, population density, and entire sections

of food webs. Such experiments are rapidly rebuilding ecological theories as

they apply to all organisms. As a demonstration of state-of-the-art historical and

experimental research and as a call for philosophical engagement, this volume will

join its predecessors—Lizard Ecology: A Symposium and Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model

Organism—in directing ecological research for years to come.

“The topics [in this volume] represent an impressive diversity of approaches, rang-

ing from detailed life-history studies of single species and in-depth analyses of lizard commu-

nities to broad-based comparisons of multiple traits across all groups of lizards. . . . [Lizard

Ecology] not only provides a context in which to view these individual studies but opens a

unique window on lizard ecology past, present, and future.”—Science

Cloth: $39.50 ISBN 0-691-03649-7

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

AVAILABLE AT FINE BOOKSTORES OR DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER: 800-777-4726 WORLD WIDE WEB SITE: HTTP: //AAUP.PUPRESS.PRINCETON.EDU/PUPRESS

Amphibian & reptile conservation

: the international journal

devoted to the worldwide

preservation and management of

amphibian and reptilian diversit

HERPETOLOGICAL ECOTOUR AN. MUS. NAT. HIST. LIBRARY

Received on: @8-10-98

WITT IAM HH |

HT Will Hl

DATES? 8 - 21 December 1996

Are you a_herptile enthusiast® Have you ever dreamt of visiting Madagascars YES

- then here is your chance to jein a herpetologist on an unforgettable holiday.

UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS is of fering a_ special herpetological tour to Madagascar.

With over 300 reptile species and nearly [70 frog species, Ooh is one of

the best places in the world to visit for it’s her solder

tailed kapidolo tortoises, giant hog-nosed snakes, blood-re > frogs, turquoise

Parson’s chameleons the size of small cats, jex Ur 3 os edged with

mantellas, flat-

other bizarre reptiles bians await the avid

frills, iridescent boas and man

herpetologist on this island.

For two weeks Marius Bu hilst exploring some of

Madagascar’s prime herpeto _Perinet Nosy Mangabe and

Ambanizana (Masoala_ Penins and lvaty near Toliaras Marius has

} reptiles and amphibians. He is an

avid herpetological photographer Featuring in the current edition of A

Fieldguide To The Amphibians Of Madagascar (Glaw & Vences), on the

recent cover of Herpefological f 27(2), June 1996 and also in a few books

on South African reptiles and amphibians.

traveled extensively on this

UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS,

have endless experience in

tour operator responsible for the travel arrangements,

s of organizing group tours - their leaders include

renowned experts such as lan Sinclair and Hilary Bradt. A Malagasy guide, fluent

in English and French, will accompany the group throughout the trip, ensuring a

for I2 people is R8 404.-- (+/- US$ 2,155.--). Bookings

26 by which time a 10% deposit should be paid- Balance

1996.

problem-free holiday. Price

close by 30 September |9

is due by 3! October

For further details and an expanded itinerary, please contact Marius Burger, Private

Bag 1006, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa, Tel? 27-46I-272I6, Fax’ 27-46l-27270,

E-mails marius@kudureserueaceza or UNUSUAL DESTINATIONS, P.O. Box 1583, Vorna

Valley, 1686, South Africa, Tel? 27-II-8054833 or 34, Fax’ 27-ll-8054835, E-mail:

unusdest@global.co.za>