Borneman? Corals? Federal Government?

[Patrick™]

I figure I better post this now, this thread will not be closed. I have asked my moderators to monitor it. If you choose to incite riot, flame or otherwise be insulting then we will merely edit the post or remove it from this thread. It will be at our discretion. RAG has always been a place to have frank discussions about our hobby and things that go on in it. So please keep it in mind, we shall discuss this topic not attack those who post or are involved in it. Please re-read your post before hitting the submit button. There are a lot of theories out there and it is fine to conjecture and explore those theories as long as it is done in a polite and respectful way.

[vaporize]

dont know what's the fuss about, isn't ORA growing corals from all over the world in their florida facilities anyways? I am sure they are using some kind of seawater and thus contamination.

Is florida corals so much prettier than Pacific or Australian or Tonga or solomenisland corals? I doubt it.

[sihaya]

I don't know much about ORA, but I would think this situation to be very different. For one thing, look at what the corals were meant to be used for. Whether they were going to be "lab rat corals" or corals for restoration, prevention of contamination should have been a top priority. Besides that, it looks like much of the corals ended up dying or severely jeopardized.

In any case, if and when ORA were to apply for a permit to keep protected Florida corals, there'd be no mistaking who they were and what they did. In this situation, it looks like there was confusion over why these corals went to a commercial distributer and if the FKNMS really understood that that's where they were going.

[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

[sihaya]

Originally Posted by charlesr1958

Again, it saddens me to see how far the gossip

This not gossip Chuck... these are government documents. Now, you posting on RDO inviting people to speculate about my "motives"; THAT is gossip.

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.

Oh, cry me a river... I had/have no such intention. As I've pointed out numerous times, this isn't just about Mr. Borneman.

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.

If you don't believe me, you can call the NOAA FOIA office and verify that I have posted all the documents sent to me to date.

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.

Much of the corals taken were taken from nursery baskets set aside by the Navy for restoration.

I see this as being on par when a ship or oil rig platform is cleaned of "fouling" life forms.

Not at all... much of these corals were healthy and destined for restoration elsewhere in the Keys.

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.

Even if this is true, how does it excuse taking them to a commercial distributor were so many of them died?

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" ?

These corals were not corals grown off of live rock.

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.

Even if this plan is reasonable, the FKNMS had not (and likely would not have) approved any selling of fragments grown from these corals. Besides that, once the corals were contaminated, how could they be used as "lab rat corals?"

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.

Not that I think this is an important point, but how do you know this?

All of which, by the way, were returned when requested he do so.

As is required by law. But I think you're missing just what a big deal it is to have the superintendent of the FKNMS recall all corals under a permit. It's not something they do all that often.

That also is conjecture with what has been put out by Sarah,

What is? I'm not making any claims that aren't obvious from the documents. When it comes to anything else, I'm just posing questions. (btw, it's Sara)

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.

It was resolved by Mr. Causey demanding that all the corals be returned immediately... and (as might be suggested by the timing of it) with Mr. Borneman no longer being chair of this CDHC project.

The care of the corals were reef savers responsibility.

Nope. When corals are issued to a researcher under a permit for research, the care of those corals is the ultimate responsibility of the permit holder.

While the corals were demanded for return, such a demand only came at the same time that Eric's permit was revoked.

And why was the permit 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.

You still don't understand that Mr. Borneman NEVER owned those corals. They are, were, and always will be, the property of the American people.

The corals were kept in isolated systems with no pacific corals in the facility that I am aware of.

This is just absolutely and obviously not true. Even in the IMAC lecture and RK article, it clearly states that Indo-Pacific corals were at the same facility. This facility did not have separate rooms. And in fact, many of the tanks were "stacked" over each other (see pictures in the Borneman 2004 IMAC lecture available on DVD).

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.

Dennis Tagrin, who was in regular communication with both Mr. Borneman and Mr. Koch during the project, informed both me and Steven Pro in an email that they all knew the corals were likely contaminated.

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.

And we should trust you instead, because... ? I've provided legally obtained government documents. What do you have?

[davidryder]

I think Chuck has nailed it. There isn't enough information to draw any conclusions - only that something went wrong and Eric B was at blame.

Whatever transpired 2+ years ago, is over. It's time to move on. It is bewildering why a moderator of such a forum would open this topic and send a mass email to engage the debate. It's funny that all the questions proposed in the email only implicate Eric B. This thread and its creation has obvious intentions, just as the website created to slight Eric B's character. I love how the author claims the website was created to find out if there was 'any good that came of the project' and yet the only thing I find at that site is data implicating Eric B, and nothing to do with the progression or conclusion of the project. Keep playing it off as 'take it up with the NOAA as I only have what they have sent' but the fact is that what you have presented is only a partial element of the story. You post it and assume people to make conclusions and interpretations... like Chuck said, the data on that site is only partial and conclusions are simply conjecture.

[davidryder]

sihaya - I understand your concern for these corals... but the matter has been resolved, and more than 2 years ago. Whatever happened, I'm sure everyone had the best intentions. Eric B. isn't evil and wasn't trying to make a profit from these corals. We are talking about 3-10" coral heads that were intended to be used for scientific research. Whatever happened is over, and all parties have been satisfied - at least to a legal extent.

Starting a thread with questions implicating anyone in a matter that was resolved over 2 years ago IMO is not a quest for knowledge - it's a witch hunt. There can't be any real belief that this thread is going to bring any new information to light. It is what it is and I think it's time to move on! Eric B will still be speaking at this years IMAC... it just puzzles me!!!

[DaveK]

Removed posts - A couple of RAG members got into a bit of a flame war on this thread. The flame posts were removed, pending possible addition moderator action.

[rm250]

I had not heard anything about this, but wow! The e-mail makes the intent of this thread blatantly obvious. I wish I knew what motivated this. AND it happened over 2 years ago!? Why hash it out now? Call off the dogs already RAG. There goes my free membership LOL

[cUddlefish]

I've been doing this a long time. I did not know what had happened. I can read for myself and draw my own conclusions. I am benefited by the knowlege of knowing both sides. My opinion is simple: The rules are poorly written. EB messed up.

This will affect me because the government will remember this "incident" when it comes to future permits. Time does not dimminish the appropriateness of the topic.