- Status
Ok, so obviously some people have inside knowledge! Help me figure out who is who?
Icewhatever is a MB goof off? Goes to different sites and causes trouble?
Now, pk1 joins, seems to know something and events? Could be EBs mom? lawyer? Neighbor?
Pro, he's easy, he EB cohort on MD>
Sara/Sarah is the chick in that movie Erin Brockovich.
CRacker is........
Who is EB? Is he posting here?
Icewhatever is a MB goof off? Goes to different sites and causes trouble?
Now, pk1 joins, seems to know something and events? Could be EBs mom? lawyer? Neighbor?
Pro, he's easy, he EB cohort on MD>
Sara/Sarah is the chick in that movie Erin Brockovich.
CRacker is........
Who is EB? Is he posting here?
"What if the professor who has the permit gets fired? What if the research facility hedges on thier taxes? So in your eye's the person issuing the permit should know if any of this is going to happen?"
what if there's a fire
what it there's a hurricane
what if the sky falls
Why not just hand them out like after dinner mints?
That professor would work with a group of other professors that would take over the permit in one of their names. Just like Mote Lab did when the corals were returned. One person put their permit in that name only.
If that is not a solution, then the corals would be returned, or sent on to another falcility that had a use for them and met the requirements for a permit.
They would not be abandoned, left to die, people would be accountable.
Which is more or less what has happend here, except for the abandon part.
The person holding the permit was not meeting the requirements of his permit. His permit was cancelled.
The corals that survived it were sent to Mote Marine Lab, and another permit was issued, for another reason, under another name.
what if there's a fire
what it there's a hurricane
what if the sky falls
Why not just hand them out like after dinner mints?
That professor would work with a group of other professors that would take over the permit in one of their names. Just like Mote Lab did when the corals were returned. One person put their permit in that name only.
If that is not a solution, then the corals would be returned, or sent on to another falcility that had a use for them and met the requirements for a permit.
They would not be abandoned, left to die, people would be accountable.
Which is more or less what has happend here, except for the abandon part.
The person holding the permit was not meeting the requirements of his permit. His permit was cancelled.
The corals that survived it were sent to Mote Marine Lab, and another permit was issued, for another reason, under another name.
It looks to me like he was doing exactly what his permit stated he was going to do? The permit application says what he's going to do. Culture the coral to provide specimens for lab research. Did the permit office assume the lab specimens would be free to anyone who wanted them? Or did they understand that they would be sold to people running tests on these corals?
So somewhere along the lines the facility stopped caring for the corals for some reason or another-FKNMS was notified, got pissed and wanted the coral back. Is this right so far?
So somewhere along the lines the facility stopped caring for the corals for some reason or another-FKNMS was notified, got pissed and wanted the coral back. Is this right so far?
And I'm glad your not in charge of issuing permits 
The permit also states that the Reef Savers is technically able to care for the advanced needs of the corals, and that going into detail about the facility was beyond the scope of the permit, and any questions about the site he would be happy to answer. So again who ever issued the permit should have asked the person applying for it if his relationship with the facility was and will forever remain in good standing?
The permit also states that the Reef Savers is technically able to care for the advanced needs of the corals, and that going into detail about the facility was beyond the scope of the permit, and any questions about the site he would be happy to answer. So again who ever issued the permit should have asked the person applying for it if his relationship with the facility was and will forever remain in good standing?
pk1":2sqv871z said:
Several times in this thread that has been posted. I posted it several times myself.
I agree with you.
The Sanctuary is at fault. The Sanctuary should have checked out his story before the Sanctuary gave him a permit. The Sanctuary should not have taken his word for it, and checked it out.
The Sanctuary is to blame for giving someone a permit, when the conditions of that permit were impossible to meet.
The permit specifically calls for a permanent culture, and a long term study.
Eric is just collateral damage.
.
StevenPro":12aor268 said:
i never once said "he claimed he owned reefsavers" im saying he should have had a better facility, which reminds me, reef savers is a buisness, i doubt they said they would care for a butt load of coral for free... thats no way to run a buisness. this task would be a huge project, everyone agrees, what was reef savers cut of the pie? since they were left in charge for so long. did MY TAX MONEY go to that too? some warehouse to neglect federally protected species? when they would have done much better, nearly anywhere else.
pk1":31z2gncw said:
eric filled out the permit, from what you know, does it seem like reefsavers is able to care for the advanced needs of the corals? given all that we have talked about? the huge task that this project is trying to do, does it sound like a fish store warehouse really has the ability to set up and quarantine and care for "truck loads" or endangered species? knowing what you know, does it sound like eric should of gotten the permit AT ALL?
Everything went fine with the corals and their care at Reef Savers for approximately nine months to a year. FKNMS never did give them a decision on selling those corals to researchers or into the trade. At that point, I get the impression the Reef Savers was tired of the money pit this project had become, quick caring for the corals, and soon thereafter locked Eric out.
I don't blame them.
That goes back to the Sanctuary not checking the story out before they issued the permit.
A permit for a permanent and long term study.
They should have known the Sanctuary would not give permission to sell to the trade. That's a given.
If money was going to be that big of a problem, they should have either not taken on the project, have guaranteed any grant monies, or fixed their agreement with the Sanctuary about selling for research before starting the project.
Again, they did not give themselves the permit. The Sanctuary gave the permit. The Sanctuary is responsible for checking out all of the stories before issuing the permit.
On a side note. The Sanctuary has access to a lot of money. Money that's earmarked for research. If someone had applied, had a legitimate reason to receive it. Commonly done for on going research. There's no reason that they would not have received it.
The only time that is not done, is when there is a cloud over the research.
.
That goes back to the Sanctuary not checking the story out before they issued the permit.
A permit for a permanent and long term study.
They should have known the Sanctuary would not give permission to sell to the trade. That's a given.
If money was going to be that big of a problem, they should have either not taken on the project, have guaranteed any grant monies, or fixed their agreement with the Sanctuary about selling for research before starting the project.
Again, they did not give themselves the permit. The Sanctuary gave the permit. The Sanctuary is responsible for checking out all of the stories before issuing the permit.
On a side note. The Sanctuary has access to a lot of money. Money that's earmarked for research. If someone had applied, had a legitimate reason to receive it. Commonly done for on going research. There's no reason that they would not have received it.
The only time that is not done, is when there is a cloud over the research.
.
It wasn't Reef Saver's responsibility to take care of those corals. Even if Eric asked them to do it and they said they would in the beginning... it's not their responsibility. They're not researchers. They're not members of the CDHC or the University of Houston. We don't even have any evidence that they were ever given much, if any, financial compensation. Personally, I'd count them in the victims corner here.
Personally, I would follow the money trail.
I would request a FOIA on any and all grants and up front money, and subsequent funding.
Just to see.
This was not a cheap project. It was the collection, transportation, and long term housing of hundreds of pounds of corals.
I would request a FOIA on any and all grants and up front money, and subsequent funding.
Just to see.
This was not a cheap project. It was the collection, transportation, and long term housing of hundreds of pounds of corals.
- Status
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
