Eric Borneman coral controversy

[coralbabies]

So an owner of a business enters into a contract to provide certain services for perishable items over an extended period of time. The client who retains guardianship for the perisable goods receives funding to pay for these services from source y. Source y has a parent company that has responsiblity and oversight of source y's activities. For a while things go smoothly but source y has not provded adequate funding. The client is unable to pay for these services. The business owner demands payment or threatens to cease care of the perishable goods. The business owner holds the perisable goods hostage in an attempt to obtain payment and the client no longer has access to the goods. Source y does not want its lack of support to become know by its parent and does nothing. The business owner refuses to provide anything other than minimum care and many of the goods are no longer usable. After a while, the parent discovers what has happened and demands that the client return the goods. The client cannot since source y has revoked his privaleges and the business owner refuses to let him enter the premises. All parties are at a impasse.

Who is to blame?

 

[gwaco]

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.

of course they were'nt going to answer his request ( or brain storm ) to look into this for profit . they had already stated in the original permit that this was not to be for profit . by doing that they would be going against their own permit rules .

 

[coralbabies]

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.

Wrong. They did have a responsibility to notify the proper authorities/agencies that they had possesion of the corals and of their intention to cease care of them

 

[gwaco]

So an owner of a business enters into a contract to provide certain services for perishable items over an extended period of time. The client who retains guardianship for the perisable goods receives funding to pay for these services from source y. Source y has a parent company that has responsiblity and oversight of source y's activities. For a while things go smoothly but source y has not provded adequate funding. The client is unable to pay for these services. The business owner demands payment or threatens to cease care of the perishable goods. The business owner holds the perisable goods hostage in an attempt to obtain payment and the client no longer has access to the goods. Source y does not want its lack of support to become know by its parent and does nothing. The business owner refuses to provide anything other than minimum care and many of the goods are no longer usable. After a while, the parent discovers what has happened and demands that the client return the goods. The client cannot since source y has revoked his privaleges and the business owner refuses to let him enter the premises. All parties are at a impasse.

Who is to blame?

as stated numerous times that would fall back onto fknms , since they did not check into this before issuing the permit . under permit 3 under permit activity , in paragraph 1 , it states that reef savers in houston texas is a" lab" or so they thought or were told as such . had someone from fknms gone to look and seen a aquaculture warehouse they would not have issued him a permit .

 

[Anonymous]

It was the person who's name was on the permits responsibility and their responsibility only.
That is the reason that permits are only signed into one person's name and not given to organizations, labs, facilities, etc.
That is the reason the permit was issued to one person and not the CDHC.
That is the reason that Mote had to find one person in their lab who was willing to take the responsibiliy to hold the permit in their name only.

 

[gwaco]

I like irony. I find it assuming that they won't let Eric sell them, but discuss charging a service fee for them later.

it doesn't matter what they did with them after they got them back ! look at permit 3 again ! on page two , under special conditions , paragraph one - the fknms supertendent may request in writing that coral specimans , or portions there of , be returned to the santuary for restoration , research , OR OTHER PURPOSES .
so they could have thrown them in the trash if they wanted to ! or made millions off them . they covered themselves with that last little sentance.

 

[coralbabies]

For the sake of aurgument, assume the permit holder made every attempt to notifiy the oversight agency. Is it possible that the oversight agencies or those that issued the permits did not carry out their obligations?

It is difficult to believe for one minute, that the individuals that issued the permit did not have knowledge of the Reefsavers operation. There are not that many large scale players in the industry. How many facilities in the US would have had the capability to house that many corals?

 

[Anonymous]

StevenPro wrote:
I like irony. I find it assuming that they won't let Eric sell them, but discuss charging a service fee for them later.

If this is true, I find it says a lot about their feelings and trust.

They will let Mote entertain the possibility of selling the corals to other legitimate facilities.

But they won't let Eric do it.

 

[Anonymous]

For the sake of aurgument, assume the permit holder made every attempt to notifiy the oversight agency. Is it possible that the oversight agencies or those that issued the permits did not carry out their obligations?

There are no less than 50 people that could have been called if not more. This took place over a long period of time.

It is difficult to believe for one minute, that the individuals that issued the permit did not have knowledge of the Reefsavers operation. There are not that many large scale players in the industry. How many facilities in the US would have had the capability to house that many corals?

The University of Georgia for one, U of Miami, U of Auburn, a lot in the mid west, several in the NE and even more in Calif.

This is your government you're talking about. At the same time, that those very same people were up to their eyeballs being sued by every group you can think of for the Truman Annex project.
Plus it was the CHDC, who'd ah thunk it?

 

[gwaco]

For the sake of aurgument, assume the permit holder made every attempt to notifiy the oversight agency. Is it possible that the oversight agencies or those that issued the permits did not carry out their obligations?

It is difficult to believe for one minute, that the individuals that issued the permit did not have knowledge of the Reefsavers operation. There are not that many large scale players in the industry. How many facilities in the US would have had the capability to house that many corals?

i sorta agree with the second part of this . someone either didn't do their homework , or they may have know all about it, but for some reason still allowed the permit to still be approved. if this is the case than you would think they would have some explaining to do !

 

[gwaco]

remember ! *^it starts on the top of the hill and rolls down :wink: !

 

[sihaya]

so they could have thrown them in the trash if they wanted to ! or made millions off them . they covered themselves with that last little sentance.

Of course. But let's get some perspective here. The FKNMS has all the authority over any corals in the Florida Keys. If they ever needed or wanted corals for any purpose, they wouldn't need to go recovering corals under permits they granted to researchers just because they wanted the corals. That would make absolutely no sense.

 

[Anonymous]

All the more reason that pulling someone's permit and requesting that the corals are returned immediately, is a big deal.

No one wants them back, no one wants them back if there's a chance they have been contaminated, and no one wants to take the risk of shipping them again.

Pulling the permit and getting the corals back is the last resort after everything else has been tried and failed and you give everyone every chance to make it rigth before you would do that.

 

[sihaya]

Ok, but I'm not sure there was any other money other than out-of-pocket and (if the permit ap is correct) money from Borneman's NSF graduate research fellowship grants. That said, there may have been some grants applied for... I'll look into it.

 

[gwaco]

so they could have thrown them in the trash if they wanted to ! or made millions off them . they covered themselves with that last little sentance.

Of course. But let's get some perspective here. The FKNMS has all the authority over any corals in the Florida Keys. If they ever needed or wanted corals for any purpose, they wouldn't need to go recovering corals under permits they granted to researchers just because they wanted the corals. That would make absolutely no sense.

agreed but they wouldn't purposely go out and just pull corals just because they can either . i would only assume they wouldn't even touch the reef if they didn't have a reason to . the trumen annex dregging was a reason to pull corals , they just gave the rest to the wrong person .

 

[Anonymous]

No big deal, just look and see anyway.

This was a very big, very ambitious project, backed by the CDHC, a part of NOAA/DOC, which has access to funding.

Funding would have been in line along with the initial permits. That is if the permitting process was followed.

 

[sihaya]

agreed but they wouldn't purposely go out and just pull corals just because they can either . i would only assume they wouldn't even touch the reef if they didn't have a reason to .

I totally agree.

the trumen annex dregging was a reason to pull corals , they just gave the rest to the wrong person .

Yeah, sounds about right... or some of the corals simply fell into the hands of people the FKNMS regrets they had.

 

[sihaya]

No big deal, just look and see anyway.

This was a very big, very ambitious project, backed by the CDHC, a part of NOAA/DOC, which has access to funding.

Funding would have been in line along with the initial permits. That is if the permitting process was followed.

Yeah, I'll look. One thing I also wonder about is if UH had to approve this use of Borneman's NSF grants...

 

[Anonymous]

Steven, I do not believe that your are really this calloused about endanged corals and saving the reef.
Isn't that what the hobby is all about?

Buying aquacultured corals to save the reef, growing coral fragments to save the reef, etc.

I do not believe that you are this calloused about protecting our natural resources either.

If this story was about collecting hundreds of highly endanged orchids in Montana, taking them to a plant nursery, then going to Puerto Rico and leaving no one to take care of them, you would be outraged.

If you heard that someone caught hundreds of polar bears, took them to a pet warehouse, then walked away, you would be outraged.

If you heard that the Department of Commerce gave those people permits to do that, did not check out their stories before they gave them the permits, you would be outraged.

this always gets me going, heh-and may be worthy of a threadsplit for further debate.

believe it or not, there isn't ONE thing about taking a critter from its habitat, and burning fossil fuels to enjoy it in your home, that has anything to do with its conservation

not ONE reef hobbyist is aiding conservation in the act of keeping a reef tank, and the false nobility of that ridiculous contention always pisses me off

how much pollution does a reef tank create ? look at the electric bill lately ? how many oil tankers spill to get you the plastics, equipment, and electricity to enjoy your hobby ? if reef hobbyists would be truly conservation oriented, they wouldn't keep any aquatic animals at all, and stop driving their cars

the emissions you spew to keep your tank negate anything you think (delusionally) you're doing to help them in the wild

you ever buy a fish from an lfs? then YOU helped to cyanide a coral.period.

i could go on and on

cry me a river-your stance is false, and your all too gung ho hang 'em high holier than thou attitude keeps me from taking you to seriously

 

[gwaco]

this is just me thinking out loud here so take this for what its worth !
lets say me - gwaco - finds out about this great oppertunity thru some sources, that i have a good chance to secure a but load of corals , ones that others are in line for and would die for . well i polish up my permit request to appease everyone ( with possible guidence from someone on the inside ) . my permit is approved ! ya hoo ! i'm goin to the keys to pick up my prizes and bring them babies home . at some point i start thinking about all the others that were in line to get these babies and suddenly dollar signs start appearing before my eyes ! well i get my product back home all pumped up because of what i have . i start getting down to bussiness and get these babies hummin along . but wait i've done all this work and spent monies on this and i remember a certain clause in my permit that states "not for profit " dam . i know! i'll just write the permitter and ask in a sugar coated message if i can make some money off this , and give my buddy who helped me store everything some of the prizes .
i write , the answer is no ! discouraged i just throw my hands up and say f88k it i don't care anymore . i haven;t talkd to my buddy in a while , kind of left him hangin , mind'in the store , finally i converse with him and just say" there yours" but you can't do nothin with them anyways ! later i get a phone call from the permitter asking for things back , but i need time to get things straightened out ! so i stall everyone with the best story i can come up with . i'm done ! i know i have to give things back now because the same people i started out with are now different , more demanding . i give back what they ask for and ask if we can just brush it all under the rug . they agree . i get to go back and carry on with my life .
remember these are just my thoughts ....