Eric Borneman coral controversy

[pk1]

This has been asked a few times with no answer. Why in earth would someone who was "stealing" corals give a detailed inventory list to the people he was supposedly stealing them from?

I also find it ridiculous that some people on here suggest it's not appropriate to question the motive or character of the person who posted the website.

 

[smithcreek]

double post

 

[smithcreek]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but the one thing that jumped out at me is several time EB broached the subject of selling corals to labs for research purposes like lab rats are sold, and also mentions the possibility of selling to the aquarium trade. Clearly these uses are not in the original permit, and the informal email responses he receives suggest while it may be possible he would need to obtain the correct permits.

Pure speculation here, but my detective-like mind has to go there. What would happen if you promised a coral propogation farm like Reef Savers a bunch of corals to propogate and sell, to cover the cost of caring for the corals during reseearch, and then after a length of time had to tell them they weren't allowed to sell them? Might cause a rift between you and the company and might cause the company to stop caring for the corals.

I have to admit I was shocked that EB casually states "Reef Savers stopped caring for the corals for a month and a half and there are mortlities." As a researcher I can't imagine not knowing the condition of your specimens for over a month.

Maybe a deal was set up with Reef Savers without the correct permits. I thingk the clearest supprt for my speculation is the email where EB questions the ownership of the newly propagated corals. His position is seems to be that any new growth is owned by him and only the original corals, in their original size are still property of the government. It's clear that's what he means when he asks who owns individual polyps that are grown in the Reef Savers facility.

 

[Anonymous]

This has been asked a few times with no answer. Why in earth would someone who was "stealing" corals give a detailed inventory list to the people he was supposedly stealing them from? .

It was answered a lot of times.

The corals in the lab/nursery were the property of the US government, required by the Navy to be relocated.
The Navy paid to have a certain amount of corals collected, housed, and then relocated out to the reef for restoration.

The corals would have been in nursery baskets, numbered, corresponding to an inventory sheet. The Navy would have paid for that and would need to know exactly what they paid for.

Anything he took would be missing from the inventory and already known. Lying about it would do no good.

 

[StevenPro]

He presented himself as credible, the Chair of the CDHC

By my count, this is the third time you have alleged that Eric was or presented himself as the chairperson of the CHDC and this is the second time I have corrected you. Are you trying to be intentionally misleading or are you exceptionally sloppy with your choice of words or simply ignorant of the facts? Dr. Cheryl Woodley is in charge of the CDHC. The CDHC had I believe six separate committees. One of those was tasked with developing coral lab rats. Eric chaired that particular committee.

 

[sihaya]

This has been asked a few times with no answer. Why in earth would someone who was "stealing" corals give a detailed inventory list to the people he was supposedly stealing them from?

We can't know Borneman's state of mind at the time he took the corals. So we can't know if he knowingly took more than he was meant to.

However, the inventory is not so detailed. The largest size column of coral is >20cm, but Borneman claims in his RK article and IMAC lecture to have taken some colonies >50cm. Now, listing a 60cm colony as ">20cm" isn't exactly dishonest, but it doesn't paint a clear picture either.

 

[sihaya]

Dr. Cheryl Woodley is in charge of the CDHC. The CDHC had I believe six separate committees. One of those was tasked with developing coral lab rats. Eric chaired that particular committee.

At least we agree on this one!

 

[smithcreek]

Maybe a deal was set up with Reef Savers without the correct permits. I thingk the clearest supprt for my speculation is the email where EB questions the ownership of the newly propagated corals. His position is seems to be that any new growth is owned by him and only the original corals, in their original size are still property of the government. It's clear that's what he means when he asks who owns individual polyps that are grown in the Reef Savers facility.

I'd love to see someone with more knowledge of the documents address this since I've not studied them intensely. Maybe this whole thing was a case of "do first, ask permission later" that went in the toilet.

 

[StevenPro]

However, the inventory is not so detailed. The largest size column of coral is >20cm, but Borneman claims in his RK article and IMAC lecture to have taken some colonies >50cm. Now, listing a 60cm colony as ">20cm" isn't exactly dishonest, but it doesn't paint a clear picture either.

This is yet another misleading statement. The inventory was completed exactly as the sanctuary people requested. They specifically asked that corals be grouped by size with the largest classification being > 20 cm.

 

[Anonymous]

and that is exactly what I said.

Eric presented himself as credible, the Chair of the CDHC. The Sanctuary obviously did not check his story about ReefSavers.

Unless you think the Sanctuary would give someone a permit for protected corals for a long term study in a warehouse that they could be kicked out of at any time.

The Sanctuary pulling his permit and demanding that the corals be returned to the Sanctuary is a last resort.

No one would want to run the risk of shipping those corals back unless that was the last choice.

 

[StevenPro]

He is not and never claimed to be the chair of the CDHC. He merely chaired one committee of that organization. Do you really not see the difference?

 

[sihaya]

This is yet another misleading statement. The inventory was completed exactly as the sanctuary people requested. They specifically asked that corals be grouped by size with the largest classification being > 20 cm.

Steven, you don't understand... I'm not trying to say that Eric deliberately mislead them. I'm explaining how they could have misunderstood what was going on. The fact that the FKNMS asks for inventories to be organized in this way only (IMO) shows that it is HIGHLY unlikely that they expected people to take many corals significantly bigger than 20cm.

Why would they care if a frag was 5cm or 10cm but not if it was 22cm or 50cm? That just doesn't make any sense...

 

[Anonymous]

Of course I see the difference.

You are his friend and are trying to nit-pick and de-rail the conversation.

Eric's permit application states

Eric Borneman is the chair of the CDHC commitee to establish model test systems and clonal lines of coral "lab rats".

Would establishing clonal lines be something the Sanctuary thinks is a short term study taking place in a warehouse they can get kicked out of.

 

[StevenPro]

No, I think people should be careful and clear especially given the lack of facts here as well as the proliferation of unsubstantiated claims, allegations, and accusations.

 

[smithcreek]

You are his friend and are trying to nit-pick and de-rail the conversation.

Move on then. Here's the biggest question. If you were given 1 rare coral by the government to research, and the coral doubled in size over the year you spent researching it, would you consider half of it yours to do whatever you please with? It's simple to infer from EB's questions that is his position. That doesn't sound like the position a researcher would take to me.

 

[sihaya]

Ok people, here, from Eric's online resume:

2001-2005, Chair, Committee to Develop model test systems and coral “lab rats”: Culture of Aquarium Corals for Disease Research, Coral Health and Disease Consortium, US Coral Reef Task Force.

But seriously, of all the things we could be discussing, this has got to be one of the most fruitless.


I'm much more puzzled by the idea that the FKNMS would want to know which corals are 5cm vs. 10cm but not corals that are 22cm vs. 50cm. I think that the asked-for format of the inventory says something about the sizes of the corals they were expecting people to take.

 

[sihaya]

If you were given 1 rare coral by the government to research, and the coral doubled in size over the year you spent researching it, would you consider half of it yours to do whatever you please with?

No, it doesn't quite work that way... hence why Billy Causey was able to demand that all corals taken AND all corals grown from those corals, be returned.

 

[StevenPro]

I'm much more puzzled by the idea that the FKNMS would want to know which corals are 5cm vs. 10cm but not corals that are 22cm vs. 50cm. I think that the asked-for format of the inventory says something about the sizes of the corals they were expecting people to take.

I could just as easily argue that it points to the sloppiness of the sanctuary.

 

[sihaya]

I could just as easily argue that it points to the sloppiness of the sanctuary.

Is it sloppiness or naiveté? ::insert dramatic pause::

 

[Anonymous]

I could just as easily argue that it points to the sloppiness of the sanctuary.

I told you it's all the Sanctuary's fault.

They should have never believed his story and should have checked it out.

Why do you think someone had to file FOIA to get this in the first place.