Trapping and relocating each of them is unrealistic, and poses the threat of introducing the fungus, which is currently threatening amphibians around the world, to wherever these animals are released. Thinking that it a permanent study exhibit could be not only contained is also realistic. Not to mention the loss of the area as a public parkland, or risk of corrupting the study.

These animals are not used cars, their lives are not being taken with light hearts. But we must protect native wildlife. Unfortunately, the idealism of some groups is interfering with what could be a fleeting chance to do so.

Non-scientists are often unaware of just how destructive an invasive species can be to an ecosystem.

A classic example is the accidental introduction of the brown treesnake to Guam in the 1950’s. In just half a century, the snake has wiped out most of the wildlife on the island. The following quote is from a paper published by the U.S.G.S.:

“Nearly all species of Guam’s native wildlife have suffered, including reptiles, birds, and mammals. At present, Guam has lost all breeding populations of seabirds, 10 of 13 species of native forest birds, 2 of 3 native mammals, and 6 of 10 to 12 species of native lizards. Are these types of losses likely in other cases of predator introduction including snakes and other species? Sadly, this scenario has been repeated many times in both ancient and recent human history.”

Thomas H. Fritts and Dawn Leasman-Tanner
The Brown Treesnake on Guam: How the arrival of one invasive species damaged the ecology, commerce, electrical systems, and human health on Guam: A comprehensive information source. Available Online: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/resources/education/bts/bts_home.asp
U.S. Geological Survey
Fort Collins Science Center
2150 Centre Ave., Bldg C
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 USA

Those of us who value the rich biodiversity of the Bay Area cringe at the possibility that this same scenario could play out here. Fortunately, there is still time to avert such a catastrophe. We need to act now, before it is too late.

Patrick Schlemmer
President, San Francisco Naturalist Society

If you were somehow captured, thrown on a plane as a prisoner, tried to stay alive, tried to have a family, ended up in some country that doesn’t allow any foreigners, would you agree to being killed? Or would you come up with other solutions, maybe “Send me back home!”

In defense of animals is sometimes seen as irrational because they put animals as a priority. In our society that is not the norm. Please don’t seem them as “unreal” because they want to protect the frogs. Frogs are living beings just like humans, and they deserve every right to live.

Please don’t encourage the idea that a group who wants to help animals is not being real. There are other solutions to this problem, and your article puts forth the idea that anyone who wants to protect the frogs and not just take the easiest way out of the problem is being “unreal”.

I agree the greater California environment and that of the local park needs to be protected but killing is not a solution and definitely not a “humane” one.

Why is it considered such an outrageous act to have the pond be made into a new permanent environment if it can be safely contained?

Or why not trap and relocate the frogs to their indigenous location?The law prohibiting this needs to be abolished.

Why would there be a law prohibiting humanly catching and safely releasing the animals to their natural environment? That is truly obsurd!

That is the only truly humane solution.

In addition I would just like to write that in thinking about the activity of euthanasia… I always think somewhere behind that obscure notion of “humane killing” is the gruesome reality of a human being who is being paid a poor wage by the hour to kill other living creatures… not for food but just because their lives are considered a nuisance…if you ask me that is a pretty inhumane thing to do to another human..