Table11.  Respondents  support for  the  Sale  of  surplus  amphibians  from  keepers CBPs,  the  Legal  Harvest  of amphibians, and the Legal Trade of amphibians, as a percentage.

Limited canvassing of amphibian keepers showed that many threatened amphibian species are kept and bred by privates including, 15 Critically Endangered with 80% bred, 22 Endangered with 100% bred, and 28 Vulnerable with 95% bred. Large private collections of Critically Endangered, iconic, and easily bred Caudata include Ambystoma spp., the Chinese giant salamander (Andrias davidianus), and the Luristan newt (Neurergus kaiseri; IUCN, Appendix 1).

Discussion

Confidence in our survey results is provided through the high number of respondents and through their global representation. Private amphibian keepers were shown to have the expertise, willingness, and facilities to conduct CBPs responsibly managed by their societies. Respondents overall showed a high commitment to amphibian conservation through professional work, volunteering, and donations. Our limited canvassing of species currently in keeper collections showed that keepers globally maintain and breed a wide range of species, and that some Critically Endangered species are already kept and bred in large numbers by private keepers.

Approximately half of amphibian CBPs are supported by zoos and aquaria with the rest mostly in specialist facilities run by governmental or nongovernmental agencies. Institutions in western polities generally prioritise for regional species and can only support a limited number of international CBPs (Harding et al., 2015; Conde et al., 2013). Zoo and aquarium based CBPs for endemic species provide high levels of public engagement, publicity, and co-operative research. Nevertheless, CBPs based in western polities for non-endemic species have also achieved remarkable success in co-operative research, public engagement, publicity, and breeding (Gibson & Buley, 2004; Lentini, 2007; CBSG, 2006; Edmonds et al., 2015). With zoos and aquaria focusing on regional species and supporting international projects, KCBPs in western     polities     could     target     the     neglected

species mostly from the highly biodiverse regions of other polities, Asia, Africa, and Central and South America.

Official policy excludes KCBPs because of keepers assumed inability to provide sufficient quarantine (AArk, 2017e). However, we found that KCBPs appear to have similar quarantine potential as institutional CBPs, and that quarantine risks exist in some institutional CBPs that are unlikely in KCBPs and vice versa. For example, institutions often house a number of species that could host amphibian pathogens, and rely on husbandry by different keepers, trainees and interns. In contrast, KCBPs can easily provide highly isolated housing and have the devoted care of one keeper thus providing excellent quarantine.

Quarantine considerations also include the possibility of disease transmission between keepers CBPs and other amphibian populations through amphibian transfers, releases, or discharge of waste. In all CBPs amphibians should undergo full pathogen screening, along with appropriate treatment, when first taken into captivity and before transfer from the facility. The discharge of waste from keepers CBPs would normally be into domestic sewerage systems where pathogens would be eliminated. Amphibian pathogens can be also be naturally transmitted through aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, water, and birds (Fisher et al., 2012; Garmyn et al., 2012; McMahon et al., 2013; Patricia et al., 2017). Therefore, the balance between saving of hundreds of species against that of species loss due to highly questionable quarantine issues favors the official endorsement and support of KCBPs. About half of all keepers kept fish which may provide high a quarantine risk; however, terrestrial animals provide no known transmission risk of virulent amphibian pathogens.

Recent publications reflecting official policy have considered that amphibian CBPs should not be undertaken for species where an exit strategy of re-habitation, translocation, or supplementation cannot be anticipated (Bishop et al., 2012; Carrillo et al.,  2015; Tapley et al.,

Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018

35