Bad Guy Dillon and Rick Wascher, www.safedartfrogs.com

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Sounds to me like there is a group, hopefully small, that expects they can just arrive , smear someone's business, not have to provide facts, and harm that person's business.

I am beginning to think this thread says more about those people and the way they operate, than the Waschers.

I agree with you. I hope that group is small as well. I hope I'm in the minority that is just sick of dealing it and them. I hope someone still has the motivation to provide the info you seek. I already regret getting involved. I know what is expected here. I accept your criticism, and were I in your shoes, based on the limited posts you've seen here, I'd feel the same way.

Unfortunately for you, you can't compel me to participate beyond what I am motivated to contribute. You're stuck attacking me hoping it will compel further participation. It might work, it might not.

 

[markpulawski]

I for one would love to see the Washers come here and discuss the issues that have been brought up, though the BOI is not the forum where that should have happened since it is here it would be logical to see some comment from them.
As for Ed's comments regarding the term Safe which they have TM'd, they purport that their frogs are completely harmless and safe, inferring handling, which they advise people to do in getting them to "eat out of their hands". Anyone that has kept a warm moist terrarium can tell you some nasty stuff grows in that environment, would anyone suggest to a child handling something from that environment is 100% safe and non toxic?

 

[tkevan]

I for one would love to see the Washers come here and discuss the issues that have been brought up, though the BOI is not the forum where that should have happened since it is here it would be logical to see some comment from them.
As for Ed's comments regarding the term Safe which they have TM'd, they purport that their frogs are completely harmless and safe, inferring handling, which they advise people to do in getting them to "eat out of their hands". Anyone that has kept a warm moist terrarium can tell you some nasty stuff grows in that environment, would anyone suggest to a child handling something from that environment is 100% safe and non toxic?

No, I think any responsible parent wraps their child in bubblewrap immediately out of the womb. Amazing I raised 6 children to adulthood without following my own advice, eh?

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

No, I think any responsible parent wraps their child in bubblewrap immediately out of the womb. Amazing I raised 6 children to adulthood without following my own advice, eh?

Nice Strawman.

 

[markpulawski]

No, I think any responsible parent wraps their child in bubblewrap immediately out of the womb. Amazing I raised 6 children to adulthood without following my own advice, eh?

So you think publishing something on a web site as fact that could potentially harm some one is OK. I am responsible enough to take care of my own business and my kids....sadly there are many out there that are not. Based on your comment it was probably good you raised your kids without following your own advice.

 

[tkevan]

So you think publishing something on a web site as fact that could potentially harm some one is OK. I am responsible enough to take care of my own business and my kids....sadly there are many out there that are not. Based on your comment it was probably good you raised your kids without following your own advice.

If you're worried about "nasty stuff" that grows in a terrarium, you should never let your child into the woods, near a creek, pond, bayou, etc. Life is 'potentially' harmful.

 

[tkevan]

Nice Strawman.

No strawman. Look, it's obvious a few of you have issues with them because they're not the "purists" you want them to be. You've tossed out some accusations without any proof. None, notta, zip. I personally could care less about the FartFrogs, or whatever they are, but I can tell the difference in shinola and what you've posted.

Real simple....

1. What's the fraud you claim...
2. What's the nefarious actions you claim...

So far, your group is the ones running from EASY questions here.

 

[EdwardK]

This is getting a little far away from the risks posed by amphibians and their enclosures...
While it is true that you can pick up many of the same nasty bugs outside, this doesn't mean that the risks of infection is the same. For a simple example, we can look at the sources of infection from Mycobacterium marinum. It is possible to become infected with this disease from contaminated cuts or scratches in the environment but the source of the infection is much more commonly associated with aquariums. See for example http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=754060

It should also be noted that M. marinum and several other Mycobacteriums are a significant zoonotic risk from amphibians see for example http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aalas/cm/2004/00000054/00000003/art00009

This doesn't imply that the kids need to be wrapped in bubble wrap nor is it a prediction that these infections are an automatic consequence. It also should not be taken to mean that random handling amphibians is a best practice in amphibian care. As with fish, handling can remove mucus that is an integral part of important functions such as respiration, osmotic control and resistance to pathogens. As a result handling should be done when necessary and some simple precautions should be taken such as wetting one's hands before handling the amphibian and washing them throughly after the handling is finished.

Some comments

Ed

 

[tkevan]

Ed,
Agreed, but M. marinum can be acquired from swimming pools also. In the US, it's very rare in children and is normally an adult infection. Those most at risk are the immune-compromised.

 

[LauraB]

Umm, how is this current off-topic discussion re: environmental hazards and child-rearing relevant to the OP's original (and incoherent, unsubstantiated, IMWO) post?

It's not. It's about opinions, preferences and some debatable science. Better discussed elsewhere than the BOI, which is meant for inquiries and business transactions.

The OP is so committed to species purity and ethics that he posts a Bad Guy thread here. Yet he ordered frogs he never received prior to posting this Bad Guy thread and has yet to address that fact, even though he's been asked multiple times about that contradiction.

And then tells readers here to wade through, what, 160 pages of the same opinions, preferences and debatable science elsewhere?

Gimme a break.

 

[EdwardK]

Laura,

It's an outgrowth of some of the comments I posted about the claims on the Washer's site here http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1703863&postcount=60

Odd as it may seem, it's not totally off topic.

Ed

 

[EdwardK]

Ed,
Agreed, but M. marinum can be acquired from swimming pools also. In the US, it's very rare in children and is normally an adult infection. Those most at risk are the immune-compromised.

Yes, but I was using the risk of Mycobacterium as an illustration that contrary to the claims on the Washer's site, handling the frogs is not as safe as they claim. As I noted in post #60 contrary to their claims there can be some significant safety issues around handling the frogs. Not only do they still have toxic peptides, they are also a risk for transmission for a number of pathogens.. the most likely to be salmonella. Now this is an occupational hazard or an acceptable risk for people in general who keep herps, but we don't see claims that various herps are "100% safe"....

Let me see if I can upload a copy of a post on frognet by a person who decided to taste some secretions from a very upset captive bred Phyllobates terribilis. from http://lists.frognet.org/htdig.cgi/frognet-frognet.org/2005-January/013412.html

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Ed makes considerable points above.

They do refer to their frogs as harmless, as not having any toxicity, and other wording in such veins. That is incorrect. While not perhaps at the level of an animal on a wild diet, they still have metabolite compounds of potency that could cause toxicity post-contact. So their claims in that arena are specious.

I did not check out their entire site, but I did not run across any sort of "pro-handling" text in my quick look that would suggest handling. Rather, I believe the spirit of what I am reading is to allay fears/concerns of overwhelmingly strong toxicity at the level of a wild counterpart. Due to the slime coat and other aspects of potential sensitivity, many amphibians fall into the realm of look more and touch less, but I did not happen to see anything urging otherwise in my quick look.

I am not as concerned to the point of stretching the attack on the (admittedly lacking) "harmless" claim as to shoot for the possibility of zoonosis. Plenty of unpleasant and potentially devastating pathogens abound on everyday contact surfaces.

The brand naming is just that. I suggest that any buyers exercise their responsibility to conduct an evaluation of claims. By the way, given the ages of the folks involved, and therefore the years they could have had available to apply selective breeding principles relative to generation times, I have my doubts that the trio of owners has managed to make serious headway into the "dazzle" (hype) they are trying to attribute to their products.

The above matters are separate from the crosses versus purity false dichotomy topic I paid address to earlier in the thread.

 

[LauraB]

At the risk of yet another infraction ... every and any handling/keeping of an animal; domestic, captive bred and raised, or wild caught; carries risks, whether biological or physical. It is common sense.

Venomous snakes can kill. Turtles spread salmonella (as can the every-day foods I buy and cook). I could scratch myself on any number of thorny plants in my yard and then swim in the lake and contract necrotizing fasciitis.
I found a scorpion in my bathroom shower Saturday night ... when I was trapped taking my shower! Should I have called 911 or Poison Conrtrol?
Geez, common sense. Trap it, put it outside.

Let me see if I can upload a copy of a post on frognet by a person who decided to taste some secretions from a very upset captive bred Phyllobates terribilis

Seriously? Some idiot who "decided" to taste secretions from a Golden PD frog is a a credible test study? Better test him/her for Bath Salts, too.

As for Methylparaben, yes, it is an anti-fungal but sides are divided, even on Dedroboard. Some studies have shown it does stunt the growth of fruit flies, and some disagree. Neither is scientifically conclusive.

But because it is also used as a preservative for our food, drugs and cosmetics, I ain't so sure. Parabens aren't so great for people with skin problems or sensitivities. Yes, it's an anti-fungal, but more importantly, it's also used in our food, our cosmetics and has come under controversy in recent years.

Parabens in cosmetics can exacerbate skin allergies or sensitivities. Parabens have also been indicated in earlier development of breast cancers.

I still maintain this discussion is better served elsewhere and I won't take it off-topic again

PS ... Edward, it's the "Waschers", not the "Washers". Just saying

 

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Personally, I did read over their website, and based on that alone and nothing else, I would never do business with them and I don't even know anything about dart frogs more than the basics.

The whole site gives me a bad vibe. It's like they are trying way too hard to make it seem as if their frogs are superior, safer than everyone else's and of course the whole trademarking of a common word (really? Who trademarks the word SAFE? what exactly is that supposed to prove other than make you look like a gigantic sleazeball?) is really strange.

Taking established and known lines of relatively common animals and re-naming them to appear edgy and like you have created something new, to drive up the price is not only a sleazy move, it's downright wrong... it is borderline stealing.

If I got a pair of Love line Okeetee corns and then bred them, I don't get to just name the babies whatever I want to seem edgy and fetch better prices. If I took those babies and called them Hammer Line Okeetees when I have done NOTHING special more than breeding them and producing eggs, and talked them up as if they were a special new line of snake, that's wrong. This is the first it's been offered, you can only find Hammer okeetees here, blah blah blah, that doesn't make me a good business person, It would make me a borderline thief. A crook. Both for selling the animals under those false pretenses that it is a new/special line and also for tricking my buyers into thinking their animals are more valuable when in reality if they go to resell them or produce offspring they're going to find out they aren't worth anything and that none of it is what they were told by the seller.

When you are participating in a collective hobby, you don't get to just do what you want. If you want to be a part of a community, you need to abide by some basic standards and take everything into consideration. Standards that should be common sense and decency, such as, not renaming common and readily available animals for more profit, or trademarking common words that make your animals seem superior when they're no different than all of the other captive frogs.

... I can totally see what it is about this website that gives off a bad aura and is just a plain slap in the face to other well respected dart frog keepers and hobbyists.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

I did not check out their entire site, but I did not run across any sort of "pro-handling" text in my quick look that would suggest handling. Rather, I believe the spirit of what I am reading is to allay fears/concerns of overwhelmingly strong toxicity at the level of a wild counterpart. Due to the slime coat and other aspects of potential sensitivity, many amphibians fall into the realm of look more and touch less, but I did not happen to see anything urging otherwise in my quick look.

From their website.

Frog skin is not fragile if the frog is healthy and non-poison like ALL of ours. Frogs jump on the ground, onto and out of trees, into logs, etc., in the wild and they don't look for a safe landing place before they hop. Healthy frogs explore and execise, so why is that less harmful than teaching the frogs to hop into ynd. Recently we had a photo shoot where a professional photographer shot over a 1,000 photos. EVERY frog we wrangled for him jumped off the plants and frequently hit the floor to hop away. Sure we tried to catch them / stop them from jumping. We eventually did catch every one of the escapees, they were NEVER harmed and never inured. ALL of them are as sual, and never worse off. handl with care, but handle as you desire!

Hand trained: This takes weeks. The next time you feed, put your hand in the enclosure and hold it motionless and open for a minute. Remove your hand and feed. Do this every time for aweek or two. The frogs will come closer to your hand expecting food as soon as you remove it. Then let flies crawl on your hand, insert your hand they wil see your hand as the food server. Eventually they will eat the flies off your hand. COOL feeling! Lastly, after several weeks, put your hand in palm open and let them them hop in. It may take a while, but they will and you may need to coax them with food. Immediately therefater add flies, just like the landing on your hand was the magic food button. From there, over time, they will learn your hand is their friend and hop in there regularly and not freak out!

Posted here:

http://safedartfrogs.com/myths-and-fact.aspx

I have chose to quote it as, as the PDF community has frequently observed, they have a habit of changing their site when called out on inaccuracies, fallacies, and false claims. In the past they had made claims specifically that hobby frogs were not healthy and that was why hobbyists recommended not handling the frogs, but that their frogs are superior to ours. Never mind that ALL of their frogs came at some point from respected hobbyists. Unfortunately providing proof of that fact is impossible within the auspices of this forum as it requires linking and posting of third party posts from Dendroboard, which a mod has made expressly clear is against the rules here.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Personally, I did read over their website, and based on that alone and nothing else, I would never do business with them and I don't even know anything about dart frogs more than the basics.

The whole site gives me a bad vibe. It's like they are trying way too hard to make it seem as if their frogs are superior, safer than everyone else's and of course the whole trademarking of a common word (really? Who trademarks the word SAFE? what exactly is that supposed to prove other than make you look like a gigantic sleazeball?) is really strange.

Taking established and known lines of relatively common animals and re-naming them to appear edgy and like you have created something new, to drive up the price is not only a sleazy move, it's downright wrong... it is borderline stealing.

If I got a pair of Love line Okeetee corns and then bred them, I don't get to just name the babies whatever I want to seem edgy and fetch better prices. If I took those babies and called them Hammer Line Okeetees when I have done NOTHING special more than breeding them and producing eggs, and talked them up as if they were a special new line of snake, that's wrong. This is the first it's been offered, you can only find Hammer okeetees here, blah blah blah, that doesn't make me a good business person, It would make me a borderline thief. A crook. Both for selling the animals under those false pretenses that it is a new/special line and also for tricking my buyers into thinking their animals are more valuable when in reality if they go to resell them or produce offspring they're going to find out they aren't worth anything and that none of it is what they were told by the seller.

When you are participating in a collective hobby, you don't get to just do what you want. If you want to be a part of a community, you need to abide by some basic standards and take everything into consideration. Standards that should be common sense and decency, such as, not renaming common and readily available animals for more profit, or trademarking common words that make your animals seem superior when they're no different than all of the other captive frogs.

... I can totally see what it is about this website that gives off a bad aura and is just a plain slap in the face to other well respected dart frog keepers and hobbyists.

If you think it is bad now, you should have seen the rollout, and some of the more absurd claims, assertions, THREATS, etc. that have been made and eventually edited out and removed.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

From their website.



Posted here:

http://safedartfrogs.com/myths-and-fact.aspx

I have chose to quote it as, as the PDF community has frequently observed, they have a habit of changing their site when called out on inaccuracies, fallacies, and false claims. In the past they had made claims specifically that hobby frogs were not healthy and that was why hobbyists recommended not handling the frogs, but that their frogs are superior to ours. Never mind that ALL of their frogs came at some point from respected hobbyists. Unfortunately providing proof of that fact is impossible within the auspices of this forum as it requires linking and posting of third party posts from Dendroboard, which a mod has made expressly clear is against the rules here.

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it when I looked. I would not recommend their practice/suggestion, although letting them onto your hand is different than grasping them, which is more abrasive to their skin. Still, the former tends to lead to the latter once they decide to do more than just sit there.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

At the risk of yet another infraction ... every and any handling/keeping of an animal; domestic, captive bred and raised, or wild caught; carries risks, whether biological or physical. It is common sense.

Venomous snakes can kill. Turtles spread salmonella (as can the every-day foods I buy and cook). I could scratch myself on any number of thorny plants in my yard and then swim in the lake and contract necrotizing fasciitis.
I found a scorpion in my bathroom shower Saturday night ... when I was trapped taking my shower! Should I have called 911 or Poison Conrtrol?
Geez, common sense. Trap it, put it outside.

Of course it is common sense. Isn't it then not also common sense that they shouldn't be making the false claim that their frogs are completely harmless and 100% safe. This is an impossibility. Anyone in our circle of hobbies knows this. But they stand by it. One of the few false claims they refuse to abandon. Ask yourself why?

Furthermore, they use this assertion as false proof that their frogs are somehow better than ours. While we knowledgeably and responsibly admit their are some common sense concerns when keeping any exotic specifies, they openly claim(Ed) that anyone who says there is any risk should be avoided "like the plague". This statement seems to have been removed or I can no longer find it.

As for Methylparaben, yes, it is an anti-fungal but sides are divided, even on Dedroboard. Some studies have shown it does stunt the growth of fruit flies, and some disagree. Neither is scientifically conclusive.

But because it is also used as a preservative for our food, drugs and cosmetics, I ain't so sure. Parabens aren't so great for people with skin problems or sensitivities. Yes, it's an anti-fungal, but more importantly, it's also used in our food, our cosmetics and has come under controversy in recent years.

Parabens in cosmetics can exacerbate skin allergies or sensitivities. Parabens have also been indicated in earlier development of breast cancers.

The point about MP isn't that their isn't some debate. It's that they make unsubstantiated claims as to a link between frog health/growth when eating flies fed and media with MP when all the literature expressly contradicts their claims. There is absolutely no evidence to support their claims that MP stunts frog growth. Furthermore they use this false claim as a selling point to assert the superiority of their frogs to others.

I still maintain this discussion is better served elsewhere and I won't take it off-topic again

I absolutely agree. I even chastised the OP for bringing it here and now especially for abandoning it. Essentially leaving it for the rest of us to try and clean up his mess. It really is more of a hobby business debate that doesn't fit within the intended purpose of the BOI.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it when I looked. I would not recommend their practice/suggestion, although letting them onto your hand is different than grasping them, which is more abrasive to their skin. Still, the former tends to lead to the latter once they decide to do more than just sit there.

Especially when you're dealing with children. I think Our most serious concern with this claim, is that there are some really, really, really, stupid people in this world, with no common sense at all. If someone is harmed because in their absence of common sense, they believe the Wascher's false claims, that would be reprehensible. A distant second to the health concerns, is what the result might be for our hobby(s) in general. Absolutely nobody within our respective hobbies should ever be claiming that the animals are 100% safe and harmless. We all understand the risks, but we need to also understand that not everyone does. The trouble for the Wascher's, and why they refuse to take a more responsible approach is that, as they stated themselves, their own market research proves that MOSt people won't buy PDFs without an assurance of safety.