We appreciate the comments from Andreone (Reference Andreone2016) regarding our proposed alternative strategy for addressing the amphibian crisis. Andreone recognizes the utility of an Incident Command System approach but doubts the feasibility of implementation at an international level. We stated in our original article, however, that ‘the feasibility of our suggestion is debatable, but our point is that radically different approaches are necessary to effectively manage the largest extinction event in modern history’ (Muths & Fisher, Reference Muths and Fisher2015). There are examples of where such top-down strategies are being applied; e.g. for the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis (Stanford & Rodda, Reference Stanford, Rodda, Witmer, Pitt and Fagerstone2007), and biosecurity planning for Micronesia and Hawaii (NAVFAC Pacific, 2016). Another example is presented by Andreone. In Madagascar a community-wide conservation plan has been developed complete with prioritization of specific actions (Andreone, Reference Andreone2016). As with any top-down strategy, challenges will surface, especially when making decisions that affect economics. We note this caveat in our article, and Andreone points out such issues in Madagascar, where there are mismatches in priorities between biodiversity conservation and civil needs. Our suggestion is that a new paradigm needs to be considered given the gravity of amphibian decline, and one option may be to take a global approach focusing on specific, major threats. Application of an Incident Command System would not necessitate competition with, or emasculation of, local conservation priorities or actions.

In our article we use the prevention of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) invasion into North America as ‘an example of where an Incident Command System approach could be applied’ but not as the only implementation of such an approach. Other amphibian diseases provide equally relevant examples. Recent work in Madagascar identifies another amphibian fungal pathogen (Bd) on the island, coincident with the incursion of the Asian toad, suggesting that immediate actions are warranted (Crottini et al., Reference Crottini, Andreone, Edmonds, Hansen, Lewis and Rabemanantsoa2014; Bletz et al., Reference Bletz, Rosa, Andreone, Courtois, Schmeller and Rabibisoa2015).

The potential invasion of Bsal into North America is a good example because it is a specific, identified threat that is amenable to a top-down, Incident Command System type of response. This disease received attention from high-level officials from Canada, the USA and Mexico at the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management in 2015 and 2016 (Mumme, Reference Mumme2015; Stoett & Temby, Reference Stoett and Temby2015). In contrast to Bsal being a ‘USA-centric’ issue, it is an example of a continental-scale issue that is being addressed cooperatively by three countries coming together through the Trilateral. This disease, and the potential repercussions to the urodele fauna if it makes its way to North America, has been highlighted as one of the most significant issues affecting North American wildlife (Mumme, Reference Mumme2015; Stoett & Temby, Reference Stoett and Temby2015; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016). Because the significance of this threat was recognized at upper governmental levels, funding was allocated for surveillance monitoring across the USA, starting in 2016, and for a working group to identify key research needs and strategies (Grant et al., Reference Grant, Muths, Katz, Canessa, Adam and Ballard2016). The impact of Bsal extends beyond North America (Sabino-Pinto et al., Reference Sabino-Pinto, Bletz, Hendrix, Perl, Martel and Pasmans2015). Although the pathogen was identified in Europe, and has already had significant impacts on European urodeles (Martel et al., Reference Martel, Spitzen-van der Sluijs, Blooi, Bert, Ducatelle and Fisher2013; Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al., Reference Spitzen-van der Sluijs, Spikmans, Bosman, de Zeeuw, van der Meij and Goverse2013), 47% of the global urodele diversity is represented in the USA and Mexico (a developing nation). The Trilateral management vehicle is an international mechanism to implement priorities, in this case for a large proportion of urodele diversity.

Overall we find no real contradiction in what Andreone writes. We all seem to recognize the potential of an Incident Command System, or at least a more top-down, approach. Our example from the North American Trilateral and Andreone's description of the efforts in Madagascar illustrate the first steps towards a paradigm shift. As with any shift, it is the implementation rather than the imagining that is the challenge. Andreone draws attention to the dichotomy between what is possible in developed versus developing nations regarding implementation. However, a focus on this dichotomy may be a red herring. In developed countries implementation can be onerous. An example is the level of bureaucracy in the USA or Australia, where actions can be thwarted as a result of many levels of review by multiple agencies, implementation slowed, and management effectiveness reduced (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Nally, Burbridge, Arnall, Garnett and Hayward2012). In contrast, in developing countries a few people with the right resources can be effective in implementing actions at relevant time scales (e.g. Gratwicke et al., Reference Gratwicke, Crump, Baitchman, Evans, Garelle and Hoffmann2012). Thus, we stand by our suggestion that a shift to an Incident Command System-style effort for amphibian conservation is worthy of consideration.