The Usual Ribbets

At most zoos, the amphibian collection is a fairly small affair, usually a few tanks interspersed in a main reptile house, or in a little building that they'll call the "Conservation Center" or "Discovery Center" or some such thing.  The amphibians present can usually be divided into two categories.  

The first - and usually the more interesting one to me - are the native species.  These interest me because they are usually the animals that are the most unique to the region, so I'm most likely to see animals which I'm not familiar with.  The collection of frogs in a Florida facility is going to be much different from that of one in Arizona.  Animals in these collections are, not uncommonly, collected locally (under approved permits), so even if a species isn't regularly bred under human care, you might see them.

The second group is usually what I think of as the boilerplate.  These are the same small handful of species which you can find at zoos around the country.  They might be selected for their size, or their color, or their unusual appearance, but most are selected for the same primary reason - they're available.  

There are only four Species Survival Plans for amphibians managed by AZA, and three of those are for native species with limited distribution.  The fourth is for the Panamanian golden frog.  It's a beautiful, flashy, easily-seen species, one with a compelling conservation story, worked-out husbandry, and a ready supply from the handful of facilities that regularly breed these endangered frogs.  I sometimes get a little exasperated when I see a zoo that has a small tank with a single-sex group of Panamanian golden frogs, puts up a sign about Amphibian Ark, and than pats itself on the back, telling everyone who will listen that they're helping.  In reality, most of them are just holding a few surplus animals for exhibit purposes, while the real conservation breeding takes place at a small number of zoos.   Which is fine, not every zoo is well-positioned to breed amphibians, but it sometimes feel like some zoos riding the coattails of others while not contributing as much to conservation.

Besides the golden frogs, there's a host of other popular frog species, such as the Vietnamese mossy frog, the tomato frog, and a cadre of poison dart frogs.  In recent years, the Lake Titicaca frog has gone from being a species almost unheard of in zoos to very common as its husbandry has become better understood and breeding has taken off.  

There's an overall decrease in the numbers of species in zoos, and in many cases that's unavoidable, and not always a bad thing.  If we make larger, more complex habitats for some animals, it stands to reason that we can't fit as many species within our facilities, and not all populations are sustainable.  It makes sense.  But amphibians are a group of animals for which I feel like we should be able to move the needle a little more on conservation.  They are small and breed explosively in the right conditions, as the golden frog and Titicaca frog (both non-existent in zoos thirty years ago) have shown.  For these species, it only takes a small number of zoos to maintain a viable population, and it could prove very useful for amphibians, which are among the most endangered of vertebrates.

When I see a frog gallery at a zoo that holds the same assortment of very common species (most of which are already well-established in the pet trade), I'm not just irked by the lack of originality and variety.  I see it as another sign of too many zoos and aquariums being risk averse, unwilling to accept challenges, and preferring to play it safe rather than try something different that could have the potential to build a secure population of an endangered species.