Q&A: Can pet trade help prevent amphibian disease? 

A deadly disease has nearly wiped out one of Europe’s native salamanders—and scientists and regulators are working hard to keep it from hopping across the Atlantic.

Known as Bsal, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (literally, meaning salamander eater) is a fungal pathogen that has all but eliminated wild fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) populations in the Netherlands. Bsal is closely related to Bd (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), another chytrid fungus that has reached pandemic status and has been implicated in the decline of at least 500 amphibian species worldwide. While Bd is an amphibian generalist, Bsal tends to infect salamanders. The U.S. has 221 native salamander species—more than any other country—and several have shown susceptibility to Bsal in lab trials.

Scientists believe that animals imported from Asia as a part of the commercial pet trade brought the disease to Europe, and managers are concerned that amphibians imported from Europe could similarly introduce the disease to the U.S. Exotic pets can escape their owners. Other times, people who no longer want their pet intentionally release them into the wild, along with whatever parasites or diseases they may carry. In the Florida Everglades, invasive Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus)—introduced by the pet trade—have infected Florida’s native snakes with exotic parasites.

As a result, scientists have been calling for salamander import bans for years to stop the spread of the salamander chytrid diseases. In January of 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized interim rules originally proposed in 2016 and proposed new bans on imports of over 400 species. The agency has opened a public comment period on these rules through March 11, 2025.

But these measures are largely unpopular within the pet trade. In a new paper in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, Gia Haddock, a graduate student at Michigan State University, digs into current industry perspectives and knowledge on Bsal. She discusses how stakeholders feel about regulations and import bans and what they’re willing to do to keep captive and wild amphibians safe.

We spoke with Haddock to learn more about why decision-makers should bring the pet trade to the table.

Where did the idea for this study come from?

After joining Alexa Warwick’s lab as an undergrad, I learned that certain actions regulating the amphibian pet trade, like import bans, had been taken without consulting the people who they affected. I wanted to help people be involved in the decisions that will ultimately affect their livelihoods.

This led to me interviewing people involved in the pet trade specifically to identify what management interventions they are open to, which is a part of a broader collaboration across multiple universities.

At that point, we really had no idea about the structure of the trade or how people communicated.

What does the U.S. amphibian trade look like? 

Some people get amphibians from retail pet stores, like White’s tree frogs (Litoria caerulea) or Pacman frogs (Ceratophrys spp.). From what I can tell, it’s not super common, and it’s typically people who aren’t as involved or invested in the community. Pet trade shows are more of the spot for a diversity of specialty amphibians—this is where a lot of animals tend to change hands.

There are also websites, like caudata.org, where pet owners can trade and ask for advice. They range from people whose pets accidentally bred and are looking to offload their offspring to people who have breeding populations in their basements and are looking to trade to introduce genetic diversity.

Why would an introduction of Bsal cause problems to the pet trade?

It really comes down to people losing their livelihoods and their passion. These pets are something they love and care about, and have invested a lot of time and energy into.

In economic terms, these businesses can lose everything when just one diseased individual is introduced. If we were to assume that just 5% of amphibians would be lost due to infection, which is a conservative estimate, that would mean losses of around $140 million.

Why is social science important in wildlife and disease management?

Almost everything we talk about in conservation ultimately comes down to changing human behavior. Human decisions and behavior have led to species declines, habitat loss and land use change. So to assume that the solutions for these things don’t also have to do with human actions and decisions and attitudes isn’t looking at the whole picture. I don’t think you can do effective wildlife management without doing some form of social science.

When we look at the pet trade as a social ecological system—meaning, a relationship that links humans and nature—we remember that the source point for everything in the trade is a wild caught individual. This helps us understand what we can do as conservationists, as wildlife managers and as social scientists to reduce the chances of a disease outbreak happening. Are there points where we can either support biosecurity behaviors or educate and share knowledge? To help with biosecurity, do we need to reduce the cost of buying latex gloves and disinfectants or make them more accessible?

What were your big takeaways for management implications for the study?

I was really surprised that no one mentioned how they disposed of animals as a part of their biosecurity practices, and the possibility for the bodies of dead animals to spread disease. I think there’s an idea that burying your pets in the backyard is part of a natural cycle, but in reality, you shouldn’t return a deceased amphibian back to the wild. It could have an asymptomatic infection and spread disease to native amphibians. Once you remove an amphibian from a wild population, it shouldn’t go back alive or dead. And I think that message can get lost sometimes.

But the pet trade is open to modifying certain behaviors, learning new information and taking steps to keep their animals and wild animals healthy. We asked stakeholders about their opinions on potential Bsal management options, from testing for Bsal at trade ports to limiting access to certain natural areas to banning the importation of animals. Of the eight management interventions I explored here, a lot of them were supported by the community.

But not the outright ban. Bans can result in a lot of animosity and reduced trust between managers, regulatory agencies and the public, which will ultimately create further divides and issues. I really hope this paper can help create a precedent for engaging more with stakeholders in the amphibian trade before making decisions that are going to alter their livelihoods.

This article features research that was published in a TWS peer-reviewed journal. Individual online access to all TWS journal articles is a benefit of membership. Join TWS now to read the latest in wildlife research.