The Challenges of Protecting Animals

During the past six months there’s been a great deal of media coverage about wild animal captivity issues in Ontario. Marineland in Niagara Falls, the Toronto Zoo elephants and Darwin the IKEA monkey have been three of the bigger stories, but a broad assortment of other captivity issues, both large and small, have also been featured in print, radio, television and internet media. There's also been a seemingly endless stream of other kinds of animal stories as well.

The extensive coverage of captivity issues has generated public profile and political interest both municipally and provincially. There are now more politicians than ever who take animal captivity issues (and other animal concerns) seriously or, who, at least, are not dismissive of them. It's a vastly different situation than it was 20 years ago.

That doesn’t mean things are fine today, because they’re not. We still have no comprehensive regulation of Ontario’s wildlife in captivity and our provincial animal protection legislation effectively excludes protection from most animals. However, if we’re smart, we have an opportunity to capitalize on what's happened so that we can move the animal protection agenda forward. But it won't be easy.

At the best of times, there are enormous challenges in making change happen, even when issues have a heightened profile, significant interest and momentum. There is always stiff competition for government attention from a broad spectrum of other issues. And there’s the inevitable, and often substantial, push-back from the individuals and businesses that exploit animals for personal amusement or profit.

One of the lesser known challenges is push-back from government bureaucrats themselves, some who fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I’ve actually heard some bureaucrats say, “my job is to make sure nothing changes.” They employ all kinds of issue management strategies, the most common being to delay. An often used tactic is to initiate consultations so that issue discussions drag on for weeks, months or even years. By the time some consultations finish (and many don’t, they just fizzle out), the Ministers and other politicians that were in place when they started are long gone. Even the governing party may have changed. And the new regime may not be as committed as the previous one, so no action is forthcoming. It’s happened again and again and again.

Having said that, there are some amazingly proactive bureaucrats who really do want to move the animal protection agenda forward. And there’s also an ever increasing number of politicians at every level of government who want to do the same. To help them make change happen, we should understand the systems in which they work and the internal challenges they face.

Making change happen for animals is hard. It requires guts, brains, know how and organization. Eternal vigilance isn’t enough. We need to understand how the system works and do what we can to use it and to assist or complement those who are working in it. The first step to doing that is knowledge, so I’d like to recommend three excellent books that will help every Canadian animal protection activist become better at what they do.

The first is The Art of the Possible (a handbook for political activism) by Amanda Sussman. Every activist should read this book. It provides a good synopsis about how Canada’s federal government works, but much of the material also applies to other levels of government and to other jurisdictions.

The second book is Lesli Bisgould’s Animals and the Law. Her synopsis of Canadian laws affecting animals helps explain why things are the way they are and where they should go in the future. It should be on the bookshelf of every Canadian animal protection activist.

And last, but not least, is George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant, Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. If you’ve ever wondered why the other side is so successful at getting their message heard and why so many people seem to ignore the facts about issues, this book will help you understand why.

Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Inc.

All Trapped Whales Need A Miracle

It was disturbing to hear about the killer whale pod trapped in the Hudson Bay ice with little prospect for escape. Apparently, the frantic whales were taking turns surfacing at a small breathing hole. It was presumably their repeated surfacing that kept the hole open and free of ice preventing them from drowning.

Many people called for the Canadian government to send an icebreaker to create an ice free path that the whales could follow into open water. But there were no icebreakers anywhere in the area and it would have taken far too long for one to arrive. By the time an icebreaker could get there, the whales would be long dead.

Various other options were put forward, such as cutting a pathway of holes or even euthanizing the whales if there was no hope of escape and they were suffering.

A number of years ago, three gray whales were in much the same predicament. Trapped in the Arctic ice off the north shore of Alaska, the whale’s plight attracted global attention. Eventually, with the help of a Russian icebreaker, they were freed. The incident was the subject of a popular book and then a Hollywood movie called Big Miracle.

The latest news is there’s been a miracle in Hudson Bay. The ice has shifted and now it appears the killer whales are free. It was a close call and if things were even a little bit different those whales would probably be dead.

Just like the Alaskan grey whales, the plight of the latest trapped whales became international news. Word of the plight of the killer whales spread like wildfire, primarily due to the internet. It was great to see the level of concern expressed by people from all walks of life and all geographic regions of world. I have no doubt that if they understood what was happening, the whales would have been grateful.

It’s great that the killer whales are free. They can continue to enjoy their lives with their family, friends and acquaintances, traveling far distances and taking in everything the ocean has to offer. But that’s not the case for some whales.

Also in the news during past months has been the plight of whales at Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario. While there is only one lone killer whale left at the facility, there are also several dolphins and approximately 40 belugas. Their lives bear no resemblance to the lives their wild counterparts live. They can do little of what they’ve evolved to do and are really like living museum pieces.

I encourage anyone who was concerned about the trapped wild killer whales to think about the plight of whales trapped in captivity. They deserve a miracle too.

Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Inc.

Zoos Tell Lies: Animals Suffer

Stealing Belugas Is Not Conservation

Ever hear of a leaf-scaled sea-snake, an Araripe manakin, a Rio Pescado stubfoot toad, or an Amsterdam Island albatross? They are among 100 species of wild animals and plants recently designated as the world’s 100 most endangered species on a list compiled by 8,000 scientists at the World Conservation Congress.

You are more likely to have heard of the beluga whale, also called the white whale. Its population is thought to be from 62,000 to 80,000, by the National Marine Fisheries Service, while others estimate up to 100,000. Most experts believe there is some decline. Just for comparison, we people increase our numbers by 8 million per year. There will be another 300 of us by the time you finish reading this blog.

I consider myself lucky to have seen literally thousands of belugas as I flew in a small seaplane low over the shorelines and estuaries of the west coast of Hudson Bay, some years ago, and I had close-up looks at them in the Churchill River, when they swam over to the boat to gently nudge my hand left dangling over the side. It was the young ones who did this, apparently as a game of their own devising.

Now before we discuss the lies zoos tell, let me assure you that the wild belugas I saw were assemblies of mixed groups young and adults, swimming and diving amid millions of cubic kilometers of sea rich with a huge variety of sea life. Let me also assure you that they, like polar bears, rhinoceroses, elephants and gorillas, had absolutely no trouble breeding; they know how to do it.

Fast forward to late last summer. Georgia Aquarium Inc. applied to the Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for a permit to import 18 beluga whales from the Sea of Okhotsk, Russia. Why? Georgia Aquarium’s website says it is committed to beluga conservation, and that its “studies” show that a number can be removed from the Sea of Okhotsk without depleting the population. Yeah, so? You could remove 300 humans from the population every couple of minutes without denting our numbers. But either action would be cruel to the individuals involved.

Belugas don’t breed well in captivity, but they are great favorites among visitors to aquariums. Like dolphins, their mouths are formed in a fixed configuration that makes it look like they are grinning, thus happy. The real thrust of research planned seems designed to better accommodate the species in captivity, but meanwhile, they must continually take animals from the wild. That is a process that in no way benefits belugas, putting stress on the animals forcibly captured and removed from their family and social groupings, and their homes, to spend the rest of their lives, those who survive, swimming around in the beluga equivalent of a jail cell, all for our amusement.

We do threaten belugas, directly by hunting them and indirectly through changes that we impose upon their environment. With global climate change dramatically reducing ice cover in seas belugas call home, we see increases in oil drilling and shipping. Nothing we can observe or learn from belugas swimming around in a concrete tank can teach us how to prevent such risks, the real risks to the ultimate, long-term survival of the species.

Captive breeding and release to the viable habitat can be a means to protect a truly endangered species, although such work is normally done far from public scrutiny, behind the scenes and not involving zoos. One does not need the zoo infrastructure to breed black-footed ferrets or Vancouver marmots for release back to the wild.

But don’t be fooled. Zoos and aquariums want you to believe they are somehow in the vanguard of conservation, but conservation has absolutely no connection to stealing belugas from their homes and imprisoning them so we can gawk at their cute faces.

Barry Kent MacKay
BornFree USA
Zoocheck Inc.

How do you complain to people who can't, or won't, recognize a complaint?

An Open Letter to Bill Peters, Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums: THIS IS A COMPLAINT

[Reprinted from http://animalallianceoffice.blogspot.ca/2012/08/how-do-you-complain-to-people-who-cant.html]

Bill Peters
National Director
Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Suite 400, 280 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 1R7

Dear Mr. Peters:

I am a life-long naturalist long involved in animal conservation and protection issues. As I grow older, I am ever more convinced that we must treat other species with respect and compassion. Being a member, active in many cases, of many organizations involved with wildlife, including the Toronto Zoo, it naturally bothered me to read about the plight of animals held in Marineland, Niagara Falls, such as the solitary orca (they are a social species); six out of seven sea lions being blind or with serious vision or eye problems; the death of the baby beluga because no trainers who knew how to separate her from adult males battering her as her mother sought so valiantly to save her were on the site; the fur loss, weight losses; stresses and skin lesions talked about by staff who have quit in protest and, well, you can read the newspaper, and assuming you have done so, you know the litany of complaints, and to date, focused entirely on marine mammals. (www.thestar.com/topic/marineland) There have, in the last twenty years, been documented many other concerns about other animals, such as bears, and deer, at Marineland.

And here's the problem: when those reports are submitted to CAZA, people like me think that, because CAZA always claims to share our concerns about animals, they will be read. I know my colleague, Julie Woodyer, of Zoocheck Canada, met with you to complain about Marineland, and of course for the last twenty years, and especially the last 14, there have been demonstrations, media releases, and letters sent to CAZA. And yet, three times in three days the Toronto Star reported that you were not aware of any complaints.

How could you not have noticed? I mean, I realize that you can't personally take part in all CAZA inspections, that these inspections of member zoos take place only every five years, and with plenty of prior warning, so maybe during the big day things like injuries, wounds, poor sanitation and water quality, inadequate housing and so on just don't get noticed. Maybe when zoo keepers say "don't go there" the inspectors say "okay" and don't go there; or when zoo keepers say "oh, it's being treated" the inspectors say "okay" and don't make note of the problem. Or maybe the CAZA inspectors really like the people they are inspecting, and don't really want to get them into trouble, especially knowing that the people whose facilities they are inspecting may some day be inspecting their own. I mean, there aren't that many zoos in Canada compared to, say, the United States, so the chances of people all knowing each other are quite high and no one wants to be critical of someone who can be critical back.

What surprises me is that you claim to have received no complaints. I guess the fault lies with the complainers. So what we need to know, Mr. Peters, is what, in your mind, would constitute a complaint? I want to send you one so you know that people who care about animals are deeply concerned about the long history of concerns that there are abused animals and substandard husbandry that has been documented at Marineland. I know other people want to complain, have complained, so since those complaints don't count, how can we make them count? Do we write "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" on the top of the letter? Should it be in red, or underlined or in bold print?

And please understand, Mr. Peters, that this inability to recognize complaints is not restricted to you. Ontario Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur, who oversees the Ontario SPCA, is quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was in tears" when reading about the plight of the animals at Marineland, and wished she had been told. I guess it came as a shock to her, since she apparently didn't read the reports Zoocheck Canada has submitted to her government, and earlier governments, in the past, such as the Commentary on the Canadian Association ofZoos and Aquariums (CAZA) accreditation process: Marineland of Canada Niagara Falls, which was published by the World Society for the Protection of Animals and Zoocheck Canada in January, 2002. Ms Meilleur was only appointed to her present position last year, and I guess no one would have told her about that report, let alone that it was a complaint.

But Mr. Peters, you certainly have been around a lot longer than her, and since the report addresses your organization, did you not notice that it opens by saying, "For many years, Marineland of Canada has been the subject of intense criticism from animal protection organizations in Canada and around the world. A considerable portion of this criticism concerns substandard animal housing and care, and the relatively high level of cetacean mortality at the facility. Marineland has also been extensively criticized for its practice of capturing cetaceans from the wild and importing them into Canada. A detailed articulation of some of these concerns is contained in the Zoocheck Canada publication Distorted Nature: Exposing the Myth of Marineland (1998)"?

Now, I realize that no one wrote "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" on the copies sent to CAZA, so you may have not recognized that it was a complaint, or perhaps you received it and thought it only applied to Marineland, and perhaps (I'm really guessing here, since it's hard for me to understand how you would not think it constituted a complaint) you therefore failed to read the next paragraphs, which mention CAZA, specifically.

And note that it references a document published in 1998, that's fourteen years ago! And all three are still on line. (www.zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/Distorted%20Nature.pdf)

I once met a toothless old self-professed "swamp rat" in a Louisiana backwater who was taking me to see some alligators and told me he never read his mail, then said, cackling loudly, "`Cause I just cain't read!" I sort of liked the old geezer notwithstanding his illiteracy, but I'm sure you can read, so maybe there are folks, and you are one of them, who simply don't read their own mail. But surely you noticed news stories on TV and radio...you don't have to read them...and saw pictures of people demonstrating at Marineland, and being as it is a zoo, must have been curious about it? It's not too late; they're still available (www.thestar.com/videozone/1243689--protest-at-marineland). There are organizations created entirely to oppose Marineland.

Anyway, here we are with this horrific situation as outlined in the media (for example,www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx) and since you are quoted you must have talked to the reporter, and unless she is lying, you told her you have received no complaints, and yet her interview was about complaints, not from me, or animal protection groups, or demonstrators, but from people who actually work, or worked, at Marineland. Do their complaints equal complaints?

I am making this an open letter in an effort to optimize the chances that you will see it, or hear about it. I really want you to know that it is a complaint. I would suggest anyone concerned about the horrific conditions at Marineland do the same, but whether they write to you on paper or e-mail, they should first write "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" and hope that you understand.

Sincerely yours,

Barry Kent MacKay
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

[Watch this blog for the response from the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums and Barry Kent MacKay's follow up comments.]

Following up on Frogs in a Box

One of the many problems with selling live animals in children’s toy stores and gift stores is that their staff members have no training or experience handling, caring for, or advising potential new pet-owners on their purchases.

As a part of Zoocheck’s investigation into the disturbing Frogs-in-a-box I posed as a potential customer in two stores selling the frog boxes in Toronto. I went with the intention of assessing the level of knowledge among the staff who sell and care for these frogs. Prior to my visits I did a lot of research regarding the natural biology, behaviour and lifestyles of dwarf African clawed frogs, as well as on their captive husbandry and care.

The first store I entered was a popular children’s toy and book store. Lined up on a shelf I found 7 or 8 of the frog boxes near the front. I instantly noticed the algae coated tanks and wondered how long it had been since their water was changed. A laminated sign hung from the shelf warning of the dangers of Salmonella contamination (probably a good idea in a children’s store with the frogs being located at about chest height).

I found the “resident frog expert” as she referred to herself and started asking questions. Her knowledge on how to care for the frogs was limited. She didn’t know they were nocturnal, if they were male or female, where they were bred (incorrectly telling me they were born and raised in Canada), what they can eat other than the manufactured frog food that comes with the kit, or how big they grow. Basically, she wasn’t aware of the frog's requirements beyond what she had read on the written material that accompanied the frogs. The store’s care schedule was feeding them twice a week, and never changing their water. I was told they rarely last three months in the store before being purchased.

The second store I visited was a novelty gift store. This time the frogs were displayed much higher, out of reach of children, and the tanks were much cleaner –although there was no warning about the dangers of Salmonella contamination anywhere. As I started asking questions again, I realized this store owner knew a little bit more about dwarf African clawed frogs, and was more diligent about changing the water in the tanks in comparison to the kids toy store. Despite this, he too was quick to rattle off the erroneous care instructions that came with the frogs. He admitted that despite being told to only feed the frogs two pellets each twice a week, he usually put more in as he found the more dominate frog of the two often ate all the food, leaving the other to starve. Instead of changing the water every three months as advised, he changed them every other month. Ill-advisedly, he was under the impression that these frogs prefer their cramped quarters, stating that even if they were in a larger tank they would be traumatized by it and would hide in the corner. Another customer over heard this and in disbelief questioned him “what if they were in a big tank that had lots of stuff in it?” Again he persisted in his nonsensical claim that this would traumatize the frogs, adding that the energy it would take to swim to the top of the tank to breath would be too demanding for them. In this case, he is partly right; a very tall tank would be too demanding on these little guys, who have to swim to the surface quite frequently to breathe, but large shallow tanks do exist, and more room for any captive animal is always preferable. Furthermore, maintaining stable water chemistry is always easier with a larger quantity of water, which is important to consider given the frogs sensitive skin.

I got the impression that both of these store workers had good intentions for the frogs. Both were owners of their own tanks, and spoke fondly of their pets. Sadly, like other well-intentioned consumers however, they just accepted the care recommendations that came with the frogs as truthful and adequate. It only takes a little bit of time with our reliable friend Google, or even hitting up your local library, to learn what kind of care dwarf African clawed frogs really need and deserve. Once educated on their care and natural history, it’s easy to spot the severe short-comings evident in the care and habitat provided for these doomed frogs.

Zoocheck has sent out letters expressing its concerns about the frog boxes to retailers currently selling them in Ontario. An outline of the actual needs required by this particular frog species to be kept safely and humanely in captivity - as endorsed by amphibian experts - has also been included, along with a health advisory statement regarding the very real threat of Salmonella contamination linked to these frogs. Hopefully with a little more awareness these retailers will recognize the risks and cruelty associated with frogs-in-a-box and pull them from their shelves.

Michelle Harrison
Zoocheck Inc.

The Blame Game or What I Learned About Cormorants This Summer

When I told my parents I'd be working on a Zoocheck campaign to protect Double-crested Cormorants this summer, their immediate response was “oh those birds that eat all the fish!” I have to admit, this surprised me. Unlike my parents I felt very neutral towards this black bird I occasionally saw around the lake, but I was soon to learn that the Double-crested Cormorant is one of the most unjustly hated and vilified birds anywhere.

I’m lucky to have a family cottage up north, and over the past few years I’ve begun to notice the cormorants; usually sighting one or two, most often during boat rides. It’s hard not to be amazed by their distinct way of flying so incredibly low over the water, seemingly skimming the surface with their wing tips. More than once, I’ve found myself envying their ability to effortlessly manoeuver in the water; gracefully diving beneath the surface, incredibly at home in the aquatic world. Standing on webbed feet with wings outstretched, it’s hard to forget the odd sight of a cormorant drying its feathers in the sun and breeze. Up until now this was what I knew of Double-crested Cormorants. Unlike my parents I had avoided the rumour mill, never coming to perceive these native waterbirds as voracious fish-eating machines.

Both my parents are in their late 50’s now, and grew up in a time when there were a lot more game fish to be caught, and a lot less cormorants to be seen. Cormorant numbers plummeted after World War II with increased human persecution and chemical contamination from DDT. As cormorants on this part of the continent reached a point of near complete destruction, the pesticide DDT was banned, and in the 1980s their population numbers started to grow. This was somewhat bad timing, with their successful and somewhat dramatic increase in population, combined with the more conspicuous and landscape altering nature of their nesting habits, has unfortunately coincided with the ever noticeable decrease in desirable game fish –likely providing the opportunity for anglers and wildlife managers to target the cormorant as their scapegoat.

Despite science consistently being on the side of these birds (numerous studies have shown that cormorants may actually aid native fish species by primarily eating small invasive fish like alewives and the incredibly numerous round goby), pressure from hunting and fishing groups resulted in Parks Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources attempting to “control cormorant numbers” through what they call “management programs”.

Since 2000, these ill-defined programs have involved a range of attempts to kill and prevent the reproduction of cormorants through egg oiling, harassment, nest destruction, and most ruthless of all the shooting of parent birds while nesting in colonies on protected park lands. Of course the mass shooting of thousands of defenceless nesting birds sounds horrible, but it wasn’t until I actually witnessed the footage recorded by Cormorant Defenders International (CDI) of the culls carried out by park workers, that it really hit me how brutal and archaic this practice really is.

Cormorants are attentive and protective parents, who take turns incubating their eggs, hunting for fish and alternatively shading their fairly exposed young while in their treetop nests. Cormorants mate and nest in the breeding season at varying schedules which means there is a considerable span of time during which nestlings may be present. Apparently, adult cormorants aren't supposed to be slaughtered while chicks are present. But determining whether a cormorant has a chick or two in the nest is difficult or impossible. Many nests are located high in the trees, and with each pair of birds nesting at various stages, shooters engaged in culling really have no idea if there are young or not in the nests. Inevitably this results in young chicks being left to starve or fry to death in the hot sun where their parents are killed.

If that doesn’t pull at your heart-strings, there are a multitude of scientifically-backed arguments in favour of cormorants. I could explain how cormorants are not an invasive species whose population numbers are out of control, or that they do not, and could not be responsible alone for depleting game fish populations. I could argue that their nesting behaviours - though technically destructive - are a natural process that are far less of an endangerment to trees and vegetation than we humans are, or that the “management of populations” is an expensive and in-effective process of trying to control nature, that ultimately disturbs and threatens other endangered birds nesting in the same colony. Don’t get me wrong, these arguments are important; knowledge is the first step to clarifying myths and raising awareness, which the cormorant is in desperate need of. But to actually witness these beautiful creatures being mercilessly shot at during their most vulnerable time - while attempting to raise and care for their young, with many being left injured to die a slow death – it’s not even necessary to consider all the “facts.” Any compassionate, caring person should organically come to the realization that slaughtering nesting birds, of any species, is morally and ethically wrong, especially in a park or bird sanctuary.

In 2004, over 1,750 dead birds – mostly Double-crested Cormorants – were found dead in breeding colonies at the east and west ends of Lake Ontario in the late summer due to botulism. Type E botulism outbreaks are becoming more common, and are likely connected to increasing temperatures and the growing populations of invasive species introduced to the Great Lakes, such as zebra mussels and round gobies, one of the cormorant’s favourite prey species. As these exotic species essentially reshape the ecology of the Great Lakes, the native species of the area inevitably suffer, cormorants being one of those. Yet despite these troubling signs for the cormorant’s future, anglers and hunters and some government agencies seem hellbent on their eradication.

The myths about cormorants have gained traction and many people now believe they are fact. The reality is that humans almost eradicated the Double-crested Cormorant through direct persecution and the careless use of toxins. Amazingly the birds managed to pull through and re-establish themselves. Now we intentionally start killing them again. If we’re not careful, perhaps when I’m in my late 50s I may have to explain to my children how the now endangered or even extinct Double-crested Cormorant was once intentionally shot at and harassed because a few vocal people erroneously believed they were out-of control. Nature is not ours to control or manage, perhaps it’s time we recognize this. We should stop scapegoating the Double-crested Cormorant for the problems we’ve caused.

Michele Harrison
Zoocheck Inc.

Frogs in a Box?

Novelty item for kids feature live animals

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, along comes something else that boggles the mind. “EcoAquariums”, sometimes called “Frog-O-Spheres” are the current live animal fad in kid’s toy stores and gift shops throughout Canada and the US. They’re miniscule plastic cubes that measure 6 inches (15 cm) by 4 inches (10 cm) and contain two dwarf African clawed frogs, a bamboo stalk, gravel, “living gravel”, and a rock. They are mainly produced and distributed in the United States and marketed as self-contained ecosystems, perfect as low-maintenance, educational pets for young children.

At first glance these tiny “frogs in a box” might seem like the perfect solution for a puppy-begging child, but on closer inspection it becomes quite obvious that these small plastic cubes are ill-conceived, inhumane and if that’s not enough, they can pose a human health risk as well.

It should be obvious to most people that the size of the cube is far too small to maintain two dwarf African clawed frogs in a way that allows them to behave normally (meaning that they can do at least some of what they would do in a more natural and/or expansive setting) and remain in good health. Frog care literature generally recommends that each frog of this species be given at least one (preferably two) gallons of water each, that’s 277 – 554 cubic inches, instead of the 24 cubic inches the cube provides.

The potential problems become more obvious if you examine the natural lifestyle of these frogs. In the wild, they are a prey species that seek dimly lit areas to conceal themselves or hide under or around natural objects to evade perceived threats. In a tiny plastic cube, they may be unable to properly retreat and therefore endure repeated ” frights” resulting in chronic stress which can lead to illness and suffering.

Dwarf African clawed frogs are an ectothermic species, which means they are unable to regulate their own body temperature, so in captivity they require an external heat source (i.e., heater) and a thermometer should be used to monitor and maintain their preferred temperature range of 78° to 82°F (25° to 28°C). The frogs in a box have no opportunity to engage in normal thermoregulatory behaviours so they are at the mercy of their custodians.

The average household ambient temperature, which can fluctuate greatly by season (I know mine does), is not usually high enough for the frogs, and if the cube is located on a heater or a windowsill, the frog’s fate could be overheating or freezing to death. The care instructions that accompany the frogs suggest wrapping a blanket around the cube but this will do little to address the thermal needs of the frogs.

The producers claim the frogs only need to be fed two pellets twice a week, and that 75% of the water needs to be changed every 3 to 4 months due to the filtration abilities of the “living gravel” provided. In reality, shed skin, uneaten food, and feces can overwhelm the capacity of the biofiltration processes of the living gravel in the cube. Instead of the infrequent and drastic changes of water, which can shock the frogs, 10-20% of the water should be replaced periodically, possibly weekly.

Just like us, dwarf African clawed frogs do better on a diet that is high in variety and available regularly. Because these frogs’ dietary needs can fluctuate, it is generally recommended that the frog’s pellet diet be supplemented with random feedings of a variety of foodstuffs such as frozen mosquito larvae, and live food items like water fleas.

Even if we accept the claims that the frogs can be kept alive if the care instructions are followed, is living in a plastic cube really something any animal should be subjected to?

In 2009, after numerous complaints about the frogs, animal protection organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals conducted an undercover investigation of Wild Creations, the company that produces Ecoaquariums. The video footage they obtained shows hundreds of overcrowded frogs stored in stagnant unfiltered tubs of water for days on end, without any food. Staff members were filmed roughly handling and improperly packaging the frogs, as well as mistaking ill frogs for dead ones, throwing them in the garbage. It was later discovered (due to customer complaints over missing limbs) that the frogs were resorting to cannibalism in an attempt to survive these conditions VIDEO FOOTAGE.

In addition to the threats these mini-tanks can pose to the frogs they confine, they can also pose a risk to human health, and to the health of our natural, native ecosystems. Dwarf African clawed frogs are known to carry potentially pathogenic organisms (a normal part of the internal flora and fauna of many reptiles and amphibians) which have been connected to declining rates of wild amphibians in many parts of the world. Release of these frogs into the wild, or improper disposal of a dead frog, can lead to disastrous consequences to local ecosystems and wild amphibian populations. Stagnant water filled with urine, feces, shed skin, and uneaten food also provides favourable conditions for bacterial growth, including Salmonella.

As of July 18, 2011, the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) has been investigating an ongoing nationwide outbreak of Salmonella linked to the dwarf African clawed frog and the water from their tanks. A total of 241 individuals have been infected across 42 states since 2009, with 69% of the victims being younger than 10 years old. In an attempt to reduce the zoonotic threat of these frogs, the town of Markham, Ontario recently made an amendment to their Animal Control By-Law, in which they added the dwarf African clawed frog to their list of prohibited animals for both retailers and consumers.

The frog cubes are not an appropriate item for toy and gift stores. Keeping captive aquatic amphibians requires specialized care and their acquisition should not be an impulse decision – dwarf African clawed frogs are not toys, decorations, or novelty items - they are living animals that deserve the forethought, research, and responsibility that is required when deciding to become a pet owner. It doesn’t matter how small an animal is or how cheap they may be to purchase, their full range of needs should be considered.

My intuition is that these frog cubes teach many kids that some animals are disposible, and they can be mistreated, controlled, and exploited for profit. Despite the threats they face in nature, many frog species are still relatively abundant in North America, even in urban ponds, rivers and wetlands. If we’re interested in educating children about ecosystems or amphibians, we can take them outside to explore a real ecosystem as it was meant to be… in the wild, not in a bedroom or on a desk or windowsill.

The frog cubes are a popular seller for the moment, but they’ve also sparked outrage. Petitions and boycotts have appeared across the internet, and as a result many retailers have already pulled the product from their stores, including Brookstone, Magic Beans, Target, Toys R Us, Rite Aid, JC Penney, Albertsons, and Mastermind Toys. Unfortunately they are still widely available through a variety of locations and dealers including, Amazon.com, Prehistorichome.com, Green Earth Stores Ltd, Learning Express, Rolo Store, Pick of the Crop, and Scholar’s Choice.

If you think it’s inappropriate for two small frogs to live out their lives in 24 sq inch plastic cube, then please send the various retailers in Ontario (listed below) a polite email and let them know what you think. Copy your email to zoocheck@zoocheck.com

Scholar’s Choice
London, Ontario (Head office of chain)
sales@scholarschoice.ca

Green Earth Stores Ltd
London, Ontario (Head office of chain)
grnearth@greenearthstores.com

Pick of the Crop
Oakville and Milton, ON
mandrtoys@gmail.com

Rolo Store
Toronto, ON
sales@rolostore.com

Minds Alive
Collingwood and Midland, Ontario
mindsalive@rogers.com

Peek-A-Boo Kids Sales Ltd
Toronto, Ontario
peekaboo@look.ca

Mind Games
mgorders@mindgames.ca

Turtle Pond Toys
Dundas, Niagra Falls, Waterloo, and St. Catherines, Ontario
turtlepondtoys@live.ca

Michelle Harrison
Zoocheck Inc.