Right, these are good examples. There are countless examples. These frogs are by no means the only one. It's a very expensive way to have outdoor groups of frogs which inevitably die. They literally used to naturally occur there, but now can only exist by continually dumping more and more there. If they stop putting more frogs there, there will be no more frogs there. That's not a population, that's just a place that you're putting frogs to die. The thing which caused the original population's extinction is just going to kill them. Same as the wallabies, rainbow fish, etc etc.
Taxpayer dollars go to these people, they have a financial bias let's not forget.
Rather than wasting the conservation efforts on this insanity, the funds should go primarily to habitat preservation/restoration (buying land so it can be kept as wilderness is probably the best strategy), fencing off land and elimination of exotic species within that area is sometimes viable (and then it actually sometimes, in rare cases, becomes okay to release locally extinct animals into those areas, this among the very few ways in which reintroductions can be successful, but really it's just an elaborate form of a captive population anyway since it's within a modified, fenced-off area. It's still allowing populations to exist which is a good thing, I'm all for it).
Just putting animals back into the same environment they went extinct in without removing the cause of the extinction is a cruel way to squander conservation dollars.
