Who here likes BULL FROGS?

[GiantVinegaroon]

i HATE bull frogs. they are the worst species of frog in north america. they are not native to most of their range and they eat EVERYTHING!!! there are MANY species of frogs and other animals that are being wiped out because bull frogs eat them. rana muscosa is a good example. many of the leopard frog species are also good examples. mexican garter snakes are another. tarahumara frogs are another. oh....oh..... what about western pond turtles??? they used to be much more abundant. in areas where bull frogs have taken over, you will no longer see these species. bull frogs are horrible.

I think you should be more angry at Homo sapiens for that.

 

[Galapoheros]

I think they're kinda cool. Sometimes, at night I'll go catch them for fun, have a skunky smell. They are common here in Texas but there aren't many in each body of water I've been around. I think it's because the tadpoles take so long to grow and turn into frogs, most get eaten by then. You see that vid where there is a Bullfrog that sneaks up on a bird in the water's edge like a cat? I didn't know they would do something like that until I saw that vid, it was actually stalking that bird and ate it. When I was a teenager, I was driving around at night and found a huge one in the road, I got out and just picked it up. I got home and took it to my parents room to show them. They didn't think it was that big of a deal, I found out the next day that they had just thought it was a big stuffed toy I found in the road. The frog never moved when I showed them, kinda like the WB singing frog haha.

 

[josh_r]

humans have nothing to do with the destructive nature of bull frogs. i have personally seen them wipe out populations of other species of frogs in arizona. and if you think they need to have qa large body of water (man made or not) to survive, you are DEAD wrong. they can invade ANY body of water, ANY riparian habitat, AND can even be found in the middle of the desert MILES and MILES away from any body of water. you would think they wouldnt thrive in the sonoran desert, but they do. and they eat EVERYTHING. there are populations of various leopard from species that are endangered because bullfrogs have eaten them all. tarahumara frogs were wiped out because of bull frogs moving into the canyons where the tarahumara frog is.... or was found. bull frogs are so bad, they eat rats, mice, turtles, snakes, frogs, birds, fish, and even their own young. they have a place in their native swamps, but they have no place in these other fragile ecosystems outside of their natural range. any riparian habitat in arizona is a good example. they do not belong.

 

[GiantVinegaroon]

humans have nothing to do with the destructive nature of bull frogs. i have personally seen them wipe out populations of other species of frogs in arizona. and if you think they need to have qa large body of water (man made or not) to survive, you are DEAD wrong. they can invade ANY body of water, ANY riparian habitat, AND can even be found in the middle of the desert MILES and MILES away from any body of water. you would think they wouldnt thrive in the sonoran desert, but they do. and they eat EVERYTHING. there are populations of various leopard from species that are endangered because bullfrogs have eaten them all. tarahumara frogs were wiped out because of bull frogs moving into the canyons where the tarahumara frog is.... or was found. bull frogs are so bad, they eat rats, mice, turtles, snakes, frogs, birds, fish, and even their own young. they have a place in their native swamps, but they have no place in these other fragile ecosystems outside of their natural range. any riparian habitat in arizona is a good example. they do not belong.

How can you not blame humans at all for this? They put them in those spots where they don't belong!

 

[Galapoheros]

At the same time, nature doesn't care, only we do. Species go extinct, things evolve. As far as nature is concerned, everything is OK no matter our involvement. It's our emotions about something dieing out that concerns us and I feel it too. Does it make a diff? ...I don't really know. Interesting to think about though!

 

[josh_r]

How can you not blame humans at all for this? They put them in those spots where they don't belong!

fish and game is responsible for the introduction of the frogs, but fish and game is not responsible for the nature of teh frog. they are vicious by nature. taht is no humans fault.

 

[arachna-nono]

*hits forehead with palm*...

I just wish people in my area would stop catching the damn things, keeping them for a few years, then SELLING THEM ON CRAIGSLIST (even if it DOES give me a regular feeder customer for a while)! Don't get me wrong... I love to here their "wounded cow" call 'round the lake, but COME ON!

http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/pet/1408212886.html

 

[GiantVinegaroon]

fish and game is responsible for the introduction of the frogs, but fish and game is not responsible for the nature of teh frog. they are vicious by nature. taht is no humans fault.

OK NOW I'm curious as to why on earth fish and game departments would introduce them into non native areas...I thought it was people raising them for frog legs

 

[josh_r]

OK NOW I'm curious as to why on earth fish and game departments would introduce them into non native areas...I thought it was people raising them for frog legs

they were introduced for sport and hunting. basically yes, for the frog legs. its retarded.

 

[Galapoheros]

haha, I found this cartoon, there is a better Farside out there though.

 

[Goomba]

American Bullfrogs are rad. If I had a pond, and if they weren't invasive to Arizona, I might have some.

In terms of a pet, and all around awesomeness, African Bullfrogs take the cake.

Here's my beefcake, Sloppy Joe...

And here's my dad's frog...

My father's frog is actually up for sale, to anyone who's interested. check the classified for more infor.

 

[Wayfarin]

fish and game is responsible for the introduction of the frogs, but fish and game is not responsible for the nature of teh frog. they are vicious by nature. taht is no humans fault.

(Responding over 12 years later. I don't even know if the people who wrote these comments are alive anymore.)

Invasive species always appear destructive. People tend to keep resilient species in captivity, and then release those tough species for their own reasons, or accidentally, and those resilient species are considered "evil" because they are so successful.

For example, bullfrogs are adaptable and can survive in man-made ponds and pools, and in koi and goldfish ponds. Other species cannot breed in urban waters or wherever fish are present.

People rarely build small, shallow "fishless ponds" that favor most amphibians.
They build large, deep koi and goldfish ponds that favor bullfrogs, which prefer ponds with fish, sufficient space to prevent cannibalism, and deep water to dive under when disturbed.

And they outcompete these animals because they are thriving, and the others are suffering.

Blaming bullfrogs for "eating" the endangered species, which many people do, seems silly.
Do they think the frogs are searching for the rare species and eating them out of favoritism for their taste? They probably only rarely consume rare species and feed primarily on extremely abundant animals.
The decline of endangered amphibians is already a serious threat, and invasive bullfrogs are only a small part of the problem.

Here in New England, where bullfrogs are native and not invasive, we have many endangered amphibians, and people don't ever blame bullfrogs for eating them, although they probably do. They blame the real problems, such as the absence of vernal pools, and pollution from road salt.

And if bullfrogs are so ravenous, why is it that in New England, where bullfrogs are abundant, amphibians only decline when pollution or habitat destruction messes with natural habitats? Shouldn't bullfrogs be threatening species?

Animals can become extinct when predators are introduced to islands. The island species are defenseless and are "devoured to extinction" by predators.

Herptiles in the United States, where raccoons, skunks, foxes, otters, coyotes, badgers, bobcats, hawks, herons, snapping turtles, and snakes exist shouldn't be destroyed by bullfrogs eating them. They should be reproducing enough to tolerate predators preying on them, and if they cannot, then there are too few of them to start with. Also, bullfrogs are eaten, and controlled, by these animals, so they aren't exactly the top predators.

The problem is that the prey species aren't as abundant as the predator species, and this is always bad.

I don't think we're saving vulnerable species by blaming bullfrogs for their decline. We might actually be wasting our time.

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

(Responding over 12 years later. I don't even know if the people who wrote these comments are alive anymore.)

Invasive species always appear destructive. People tend to keep resilient species in captivity, and then release those tough species for their own reasons, or accidentally, and those resilient species are considered "evil" because they are so successful.

For example, bullfrogs are adaptable and can survive in man-made ponds and pools, and in koi and goldfish ponds. Other species cannot breed in urban waters or wherever fish are present.

People rarely build small, shallow "fishless ponds" that favor most amphibians.
They build large, deep koi and goldfish ponds that favor bullfrogs, which prefer ponds with fish, sufficient space to prevent cannibalism, and deep water to dive under when disturbed.

And they outcompete these animals because they are thriving, and the others are suffering.

Blaming bullfrogs for "eating" the endangered species, which many people do, seems silly.
Do they think the frogs are searching for the rare species and eating them out of favoritism for their taste? They probably only rarely consume rare species and feed primarily on extremely abundant animals.
The decline of endangered amphibians is already a serious threat, and invasive bullfrogs are only a small part of the problem.

Here in New England, where bullfrogs are native and not invasive, we have many endangered amphibians, and people don't ever blame bullfrogs for eating them, although they probably do. They blame the real problems, such as the absence of vernal pools, and pollution from road salt.

And if bullfrogs are so ravenous, why is it that in New England, where bullfrogs are abundant, amphibians only decline when pollution or habitat destruction messes with natural habitats? Shouldn't bullfrogs be threatening species?

Animals can become extinct when predators are introduced to islands. The island species are defenseless and are "devoured to extinction" by predators.

Herptiles in the United States, where raccoons, skunks, foxes, otters, coyotes, badgers, bobcats, hawks, herons, snapping turtles, and snakes exist shouldn't be destroyed by bullfrogs eating them. They should be reproducing enough to tolerate predators preying on them, and if they cannot, then there are too few of them to start with. Also, bullfrogs are eaten, and controlled, by these animals, so they aren't exactly the top predators.

The problem is that the prey species aren't as abundant as the predator species, and this is always bad.

I don't think we're saving vulnerable species by blaming bullfrogs for their decline. We might actually be wasting our time.

Wish I had one they look like good pets but the loud croaking is a no go … Pac-Man-frog croak loud too ?
I was probably just lurking when this thread came out not yet joined .

 

[Wayfarin]

Wish I had one they look like good pets but the loud croaking is a no go … Pac-Man-frog croak loud too ?
I was probably just lurking when this thread came out not yet joined .

I don't know about Pacman frogs, but I do know that croaking is only a problem with male bullfrogs. Females can make noises, but don't make many noises besides aggressive screams and squeaks. Female Pacman frogs are the same, and only vocalize when agitated.

Bullfrogs also need more spacious tanks than Pacman frogs, despite being the same size.

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

I don't know about Pacman frogs, but I do know that croaking is only a problem with male bullfrogs. Females can make noises, but don't make many noises besides aggressive screams and squeaks. Female Pacman frogs are the same, and only vocalize when agitated.

Bullfrogs also need more spacious tanks than Pacman frogs, despite being the same size.

Hmm very neat . I’ve never kept frogs or anything just know a little about them, from nature shows.

 

[The Snark]

Who here likes bull frogs.... hmm. Personally, I've tried to minimize my fetishes.