Recovery efforts have been made, most of them occurring in 2015. The Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Relict Leopard Frog, Environmental Action Statement Screening form for the Relict Leopard Frog, were both passed in 2015. These plans state that their main goal is to re-obtain land that was once habitat of the Relict Frog, but is now houses, backyards, and commercial buildings. Once land is secured, Efforts will be made to restore native plants in the area, and remove the invasive bullfrog that is known to eat the Relict Frog. There are also existing policies in place protecting the Relict Leopard frog. Unfortunately there is only one policy that SPECIFICALLY protects the Relict Leopard frog.
Hope Still Remains For These Little Frogs
There is one act that specifically help the Relict Leopard frog, the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act provides additional protection, at the Federal level, from illegal collection or use of relict leopard frogs in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. It prohibits interstate transport of animals collected in violation of State laws. Collection is only allowed with a scientific collecting permit. The specifics of illegal collection are unknown, but it is still a threat (Relict Leopard Frog Conservation Team, 2005).
Most protections offered to the Relict Leopard frog are under the endangered species act or other generalized, not specialized, laws. Creating specific laws for the Relict Leopard frog would be a good step towards conservation. For the time being, though, there are a few laws that help the species indirectly.
Lacking Leaders Of Legislation
Rule R317-2 (UAC)
One of the policies that help the Relict Leopard frog indirectly is Utah’s Administration Code, rule R317-2, section 6(c)(1) of the ESA encourages states, and Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Section 503.584. According to Utah’s Administration Code, rule R317-2, it’s the state’s job to combat water pollution, conserve the waters and to protect, maintain and improve the quality of public water supplies, wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and other beneficial uses. Section 6(c)(1) of the ESA encourages states, through Federal financial assistance and incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs. Section 6(c)(1) of the ESA is not specific to leopard frogs, but it does help them. It helps state’s protect the species by providing money from federal funds instead of the state’s pockets (Relict Leopard Frog Conservation Team, 2005).
Section 503.584 (NRS)
Possibly the most helpful policy in place is Section 503.584 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). It states that the people of the State of Nevada have an obligation to conserve and protect the various species of native fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction The purpose of NRS 503.584 is to provide a program for the conservation, protection, restoration and the propagation of native fish and other vertebrate wildlife, including migratory birds (Nevada Legislature, 2019). The overall goal is for people to step up and help the protection of native animals, but the language is a bit vague, and doesn’t state any specific means to do so.
LCR MSCP
The LCR MSCP provided a total of $100,000 to National Park Services to protect/study them. Funding for this research was initiated in 2005 and continued through 2015. Their strategy is to fund research on the frog so people can be more educated on how to protect it. There’s still a lot of unknown information out there that needs to be found (Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, 2018).
What's Been Done
