[charlesr1958]

Again, it saddens me to see how far the gossip has taken an act of vengance and allowed to grow based on fragmented information presented in such a one sided manner. With what has been presented, an honest, FAIR debate is not possible. The only thing anyone can do is draw conclussions and make accusations based on bits and pieces. This thread, as all of the others have become, will be yet just another gossip fest, it can due to the limited information/facts presented be nothing more. Below are exactly the type of conjectures made from such limited information.

Originally Posted by Patrick™

I know this topic has popped up on a few other boards and has thus been closed. In true RAG fashion, I would like to open flame free discussion on this topic.

Discussion would only lead to more conjecture and accusations, all of which are being placed on the shoulders of one man, as was the intent of Sarah. Given her history of such acts, and claims made to me, by her, through email. Her motives and intent are very obvious. Thus any other claims she makes of being impartial or of having provided all of what she recieved can only be taken as highly suspect.

It appears that in Feb 2004 Eric Borneman an "Aqua Guru" submitted an application to house and grow colonial lines of protected stony corals from the florida reefs.

Half true, the corals were being collected from a man made structure due for demolition, not a natural coral reef. The amounts of corals taken are unworthy of mention when put into perspective of the millions of fragments that were most likely lost/destroyed due to the dredging involved. I see this as being on par when a ship or oil rig platform is cleaned of "fouling" life forms. What happens to all the life, including corals, that grow on such structures slated for cleaning? While the Navy did what it could to relocate said corals, such an effort was a "good moral try" at best, and is the best one can hope for. In short, this was not some pristine natural reef that was ripped out by its roots as is being assumed by such statements. What of the thousands upon thousands of corals that start to grow as hitch hikers on aquacultured live rock and then are lost when harvested or put into our tanks? Should all such rocks then be considered a "lost reef" ?

It appears that Eric had intentions of growing them and propagating them for financial gain..

Again, not true in the manner stated above. The intent was to establish a line of "lab rats", which would be made available to other researchers without having to obtain more wild corals. Any fees charged is normal for any lab or facility that breeds/grows specimens. Such fees are neccessary to recoup the costs of breeding / care and shipment.

It appears that Eric housed the corals and such in his home and in Reef Savers a commerical coral business..

Yet again. not true. The corals Eric has/had at his home were hitch hikers obtained from aquacultured live rock and had nothing to do with the corals in question. He did however keep the skeletons of those corals that had died at reef savers as a means to keep an accounting of ALL of the coral inventory. Where else would you keep dead inventory? All of which, by the way, were returned when requested he do so.

It appears Eric took corals that were slated for transplantation by the Navy and went out side of his collecting permit..

That also is conjecture with what has been put out by Sarah, there are phones calls that were made as well as other documents proving that Eric and the "powers to be" had discussed this matter and was resolved. This is a non-issue and only appears to be an issue due to the fragmented info provided. A problem that permeates this entire so called discussion.

It appears that Eric did not care properly for the corals and instead went on many trips while he knew the corals were in jeopardy..

The care of the corals were reef savers responsibility. Any further statements by me would be conjecture, yet a good guess though as to why such happened. Not something I want to indulge in as should anyone else.

It appears that the US government had to DEMAND that Eric return the corals and did not give them back after several requests..

Not true, While the corals were demanded for return, such a demand only came at the same time that Eric's permit was revoked. When Eric tried to gain access to the corals at reef savers through a court order, the judge denied his request because having his permit revoked also revoked Eric's "ownership" of the corals. One can not reclaim property that one does not own. The government screwed up by jumping the gun.

It appears that Eric may have mixed the Atlantic corals with Pacific corals thus dooming them to a life of captivity and making them unsuitable for eventual transplantation into the wild..

The corals were kept in isolated systems with no pacific corals in the facility that I am aware of. The only truth to this statement, was that after the corals had been collected from reef savers, no one could say without a doubt that they were not contaminated, so they played it safe and ASSUMED they were.

I believe it is time for answers. These are the property of the USA. Thus it directly affects you and our future hobby..

Answers you will most likely never get unless you hire a lawyer and take every single person even remotely connected to this to court. And how does the loss of some corals growing on man made structures effect me or the hobby?

It is time for answers. Did these things really happen? Where is Eric to tell us what truly happened? Is this the travesty that it really seems?.

Would you publicy open yourself to the gossip mongers who no matter how well you explained it will always find fault and more reason to keep it going? Would you publicly open old wounds with those you have working relationships with, to what end? So a few curious hobbyists and one vengefull person can take satisifaction that they have solved a non-mystery? For Eric to get involved in a forum debate would be a very bad idea.

And for the umpteenth time, ANY AND ALL information provided by Sarah, is suspect, incomplete, and can do nothing but raise accusations based on it.

In my opinion, this was a very poor choice of topics for a webmaster to pick and promote, it belittles the forum.

Chuck