None of the methods proposed in the reading offers a practical solution for slowing down the decline in frog populations. There are problems with each of the methods you read about.
First, seriously reducing pesticides in agricultural areas with threatened frog populations is not economically practical or fair. Farmers rely on pesticides to decrease crop losses and stay competitive in the market. If farmers in areas that are close to endangered frog populations have to follow stricter regulations regarding pesticide use, then those farmers would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in other areas. They would likely lose more crops and have a lower yield than competing farms.
Second, the new treatments against the skin fungus you read about? Let me explain a couple of problems with this plan. The treatments must be applied individually to each frog. And so using them on a large scale is extremely difficult. It requires capturing and treating each individual frog in a population. Moreover, the treatments do not prevent the frogs from passing the fungus onto their offspring. So the treatments would have to be applied again and again to each new generation of frogs. So applying these treatments would be incredibly complicated and expensive.
Third, while it's a good idea to protect lakes and marshes from excessive water use and development, that will not save frog populations. You see, water use and development are not the biggest threats to water and wetland habitats. The real threat is global warming. In recent decades, global warming has contributed to the disappearance of many water and wetland habitats, causing entire species to go extinct. Prohibiting humans from using water or building near frog habitats is unlikely to prevent the ongoing habitat changes caused by global warming.
