[sihaya]

Originally Posted by davidryder

Less satisfying in what degree and to whom? I think that article clears up a lot of terribly misleading information.

LOL No it doesn't! If anything, it just raises even more questions.

"Smaller coral colonies were designated to be turned over to qualified researchers."

Yes! That's how it was *supposed* to happen. But Mr. Borneman didn't just take "smaller coral colonies." He took large >50cm colonies. And he says this throughout his IMAC lecture and in his RK article.

"Most of the corals were transferred as requested, and no enforcement action was taken, sanctuary spokeswoman Cheva Heck said. "

I've already explained to you twice in the Cincy forum why this part of the article is misleading. I even wrote to the reporter who kindly conceded to me that they had no way of knowing for sure the actual *quantity* of coral taken vs. the *quantity* of coral returned.

"Before that, the 499 coral samples were carried to Texas by a researcher before the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary formally demanded the return of the coral. "

And this is the first time in *17 years* that coral has had to be recalled under a research permit. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

"Sanctuary staff concluded it could have been a verbal misunderstanding."

I never eliminated this as a possibility either. Yes, it COULD have been a verbal misunderstanding. This we may never know for sure either.

So after all this, 12 of the small 499 corals given to Eric were lost, the larger ones were transplanted as planned, and we still don't know why they felt the corals in Eric's care were in jeopardy.

It's not that simple. The "499 colonies" (it was actually much more than that if you look at his emails) Eric took were later cut down (as he mentioned in the documents). So you can't just compare #s of corals taken vs. returned.

It looks to me the project was a huge success.

This is the most bizarre of all the comments I've seen on any forum discussing this. Huge success?! How?!?! Why!?!? What was accomplished?!? If you honestly think that something was accomplished by all this, then I'm afraid you just don't understand what happened at all.

In your quest for truth, why isn't any of that information on your website?

Um, because it's wrong. The only documents posted on my site are official, government documents. And I plan to keep it that way.

I would LOVE to see this article posted on your website. But wait, that might give people another side of the story.

I have no problem posting a link to that article on my website... however, it will have to be with a disclaimer stating that some points in the article seem to contradict the documents.

Wrong again Sara. Those corals given to Eric were corals too small to be used in transplantation and were to be used for propagation for research purposes.

No. That's how it was SUPPOSED to be. That's not what actually happened. Watch Eric's 2004 IMAC lecture... read his RK article. He took huge colonies. That's what the FKNMS is saying "could have been a verbal misunderstanding." That possible "verbal misunderstanding" is over what size corals he was meant to take.

The whole purpose of the project was to relocate colonies large enough to survive transplant. It was a success.

No, it wasn't. Maybe what was left of the corals was transplanted. I don't know. But what happened to the "Borneman corals" just tragic and no good came of it at all. The corals were recalled before the project could accomplish much of anything.

As a 'bonus' Eric B got to take the corals too small to be transplanted and use the for his personal research, not to save the worlds reef systems and reseed populations.

What??! Where are you getting this?! The FKNMS demanded that he return ALL the corals he took... AND even all the fragments grown from the corals he took.

[Personal attack moderated out]
Response: Sorry, my bad, I honestly did mean that to be an attack. Let me re-phrase: David, please review the documents again. I know they can be a bit hard to follow, but I suspect that you may not have a full understanding of what the original project plans were and what ultimately happened.

I'm sure that keynoter just made up those numbers and facts.

They didn't make up those numbers, they presented them in a way that didn't do justice to the truth. Again, see above...

I've emailed the Keynoter reporter personally and got a very thoughtful, kind response. I understand why they wrote what they wrote (or didn't write what they didn't write). The FOIA documents are still there for anyone to read. And they have a lot more information than that article.