Eric Borneman coral controversy

[andybeats]

but we're still not even sure if Mr. Borneman's project ever really intended the corals to be used for restoration.

im sure this project wasnt for restoration, it was supposed to colonize clones for disease and bleaching research, but even for research, they should have been isolated, without any chance of contamination (which we all agree, unless they built new tanks, in airlock chambers, with its own HVAC, and tons of other things, there is no way these corals can be true gulf diseases for research)

 

[sihaya]

Yep... see my previous post with the email-ed info from Dennis Tagrin.

 

[andybeats]

again, once these corals left the lab in florida, there was no way they could have been relocated into the gulf, NO WAY! there are way too many variables to count as to how these can easily become contaminated and endanger the reef that the corals would go back too. even something as simple as the artificial salt water they were mixing and some strange microbe from the local water, unless they were pulling water from florida, and shipping it to houston for water changes, it just doenst add up, everyone knows the dangers of taking a fish from your tank and tossing it back into the wild, fresh and salt, even a native species. its just a huge risk.

 

[sihaya]

agreed... but I think this is why Mr. Borneman talked of "surface sterilization." But to be honest, I don't even really understand what that is or how it could happen without killing the coral too.

 

[Liquid4ce]

I guess I just don't understand... Borneman wasn't supposed to have any corals that fit the criteria as reef restoration corals, and if he did, they should have been recovered by the sanctuary as soon as they knew.

 

[sihaya]

Just for anyone who might not understand why this contamination issue is such a very big deal, here's an extreme example of what can happen with introduction of non-indigenous pathogens:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /608060305

 

[Anonymous]

agreed... but I think this is why Mr. Borneman talked of "surface sterilization." But to be honest, I don't even really understand what that is or how it could happen without killing the coral too.

if you do not understand what it is, then you cannot make any assumptions as to whether or not it would kill anything !!!!!!!!!!-you disqualified yourself from making the latter statement with the former statement.

now do you see why me and others might find the way you present info the way you do irritating, at the least ? :idea:

was it 800 lbs of coral, or 200 and change?

i for one, could think of one possible way to 'surface sterilize' a coral that wouldn't kill a coral-though i do not think it would guarantee a full and complete sterilization-some method may, or may not, exist

it would do you a great credit to refrain from so much obvious conjecture in your posts-isn't this supposed to be about the facts, and the facts alone?

 

[Anonymous]

but we're still not even sure if Mr. Borneman's project ever really intended the corals to be used for restoration.

im sure this project wasnt for restoration, it was supposed to colonize clones for disease and bleaching research, but even for research, they should have been isolated, without any chance of contamination (which we all agree, unless they built new tanks, in airlock chambers, with its own HVAC, and tons of other things, there is no way these corals can be true gulf diseases for research)

is the public here aware that every year or so , a huge dust cloud gets blown over from africa into the atlantic, transferring all sorts of fungi, virii, and bacteria from there to here, which is believed to contribute to coral mortality in the atlantic ?

i'm not so sure that there's true 'isolation' from one ocean to the next to begin with (panama canal, international trade, and all that)

 

[sihaya]

if you do not understand what it is, then you cannot make any assumptions as to whether or not it would kill anything !!!!!!!!!!-you disqualified yourself from making the latter statement with the former statement.

You misunderstood my post... I do know what "surface sterilization" is supposed to be. I just don't believe it works. And even if it might work in some way, I don't think there's any way it could work for this purpose (e.g. especially in this case where contamination doesn't happen only via corals, but by water, air and everything else).

now do you see why me and others might find the way you present info the way you do irritating, at the least ? :idea:

it would do you a great credit to refrain from so much obvious conjecture in your posts-isn't this supposed to be about the facts, and the facts alone?

I'm apologize if my knowledge base falls a bit short of omnifarious... however, I'm not convinced that one needs to be any kind of all-knowing deity to justify a little conjecture. For instance, as I've explained above, in a situation where contamination can occur via multiple vectors, it stands to reason that "sterilizing" just one of those vectors would not be sufficient to prevent contamination (even assuming that the "surface sterilization" of that one vector might be possible-- which I still doubt it is).

 

[Anonymous]

if you do not understand what it is, then you cannot make any assumptions as to whether or not it would kill anything !!!!!!!!!!-you disqualified yourself from making the latter statement with the former statement.

You misunderstood my post... I do know what "surface sterilization" is supposed to be. I just don't believe it works. And even if it might work in some way, I don't think there's any way it could work for this purpose (e.g. especially in this case where contamination doesn't happen only via corals, but by water, air and everything else).

now do you see why me and others might find the way you present info the way you do irritating, at the least ? :idea:

it would do you a great credit to refrain from so much obvious conjecture in your posts-isn't this supposed to be about the facts, and the facts alone?

I'm apologize if my knowledge base falls a bit short of omnifarious... however, I'm not convinced that one needs to be any kind of all-knowing deity to justify a little conjecture. For instance, as I've explained above, in a situation where contamination can occur via multiple vectors, it stands to reason that "sterilizing" just one of those vectors would not be sufficient to prevent contamination (even assuming that the "surface sterilization" of that one vector might be possible-- which I still doubt it is).

I don't even really understand what that

I do know what

how did i misunderstand ? first you write you do not really understand what it is , then you write you do know what it is-you cannot have your cake and eat it too

make up your frikkin mind !

I'm not convinced that one needs to be any kind of all-knowing deity to justify a little conjecture

.

when conjecturing about the actions, motives,truths, repercussions of other's actions, and making JUDGEMENT STATEMENTS ABOUT THEM with a LACK OF COMPLETE EVIDENCE you had damn well better be- or you look like a fool, and an annoying one at that



btw-when one would surface sterilize a coral, one isn't sterilizing a vector, in the context of the above discussion-one is sterilizing the target, no ? water would be a vector, air, a fomite of other sorts, etc etc., not the coral-unless you refer to the coral as a vector in the sense of it's re-introduction to the source locale-but we know you weren't doing that

you do not need to apologize for any lack of 'omnifarity'-just stop making claims and statements on things about which you are ignorant , or pretend to be ignorant about, when it involves a personality/character attack on a third party

 

[sihaya]

My point is still the same... you can't prevent contamination of tank systems simply by surface sterilizing corals (however that may be done).

 

[Anonymous]

My point is still the same... you can't prevent contamination of tank systems simply by surface sterilizing corals (however that may be done).

but that wasn't what eric stated he'd do, or what the sterilization was for and about-his goal was to sterilize the CORAL post husbandry at the facility, prior to 'transfer' to the nature reserve, no?

they were going to surface sterilize the corals that were going to be used for reef restoration

.


your point isn't much related to the genesis of your argument re: 'surface sterilization', and you cannot backpedal and be excused merely by denying your previous statements to be your 'point' :lol:

now-what is your 'point' exactly ?

that eric 'obtained' (whether by hook or by crook is something the jury's still out on, imo) just over 200 lbs of coral, or 'hundreds' of pounds ?...

(btw-how much does an 8" (app 20cm) piece of coral weigh ? er-sans water )

that he intentionally mislead various parties about the intended fate of said corals ? everything i've read seems to indicate he made his intentions fairly clear on at least TWO public forums-could be an honest mistake, IF he was remiss in explaining his posted intent to the park authorities, no?

that he did something illegal, immoral ? if so, please specify, be exact, and show what evidence conclusively proves your contentions, without resorting to dismissive replies

i'm giving you a chance to get me to take you seriously-which is what i've been trying to get from you all along.

 

[Len]

I've read the bulk of this thread again tonight (yes, it took me a long time!) and have now reconsidered reopening this thread. I will be closing it by 4/9/07 @ 12:00PM PST, so if anyone has anything civil and meaningful to add, do it now. While most of this thread was respectful, the content really was really mostly speculative at best.

People who are truly interested in our hobby's or wild reefs' welfares are encouraged to start new threads regarding ethics, the law, ideas for the betterment of our hobby, et al. But discussing this specific situation with nothing more then speculative heresy and innuendos does no one any good.

 

[Anonymous]

What Len said.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not speculation. Corals can not be introduced as restoration unless there is zero chance those corals were contaminated.
There is only one reason to put that into a permit application.
That reason is to try and pretend that, or to fool someone, into thinking that ReefSavers was something it was not.
ReefSavers would be called a tropical fish warehouse, not a lab or a facility for the University of Houston.

His corals would never have been for restoration.

Unless someone believes that you can take a coral, put it in a warehouse with all sorts of different corals from all over the world, then use them for restoration.

I don't even believe Mr. Borneman believes that one.

Mr. Borneman knew where these corals were going, he knew exactly what the conditons were. He also knew the limitations of those conditions.

There is only one reason someone, knowing the conditions would make it impossible, would put something like that in their permit application.

.

Mr. Borneman knew exactly what Reef Savers was, when he submitted this application. You do not have to be a coral scientist to know, ahead of time, that ReefSavers was not suitable for culturing corals for restoration.
If you knew what ReefSavers was, a pet industry warehouse.

There is only one reason and two choices.

You have to be either saying one of two things.

Mr. Borneman, a coral scientist, did not know the obvious common sense requirements for corals for restoration. That there has to be zero chance that the corals were contaminated.

or

Mr. Borneman was trying to make someone believe that ReefSavers was something that it was not. That Mr. Borneman was not telling the truth.


From Craig Watson at Mote Marine Lab
Therefore, these corals can never be reintroduced as part of any restoration effort, unless there is a radical change in the criteria we are developing for the process.

.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess I just don't understand... Borneman wasn't supposed to have any corals that fit the criteria as reef restoration corals, and if he did, they should have been recovered by the sanctuary as soon as they knew.

You have to have some place to put them. You have to find some place, that does not already have corals, earmarked for something else, that has the room, space, and equipment. That these corals will not contaminate what they are already doing.

There are not that many choices available.

For the Superintendent to have to exercise his authority under Special Section 1, and have corals returned to the Sanctuary, is the last resort.

Even then, the corals could not be returned to the Sanctuary. Mote is a good choice. They also have corals on public display. They had the room.

From Craig's email to Joanne:
Because we cannot attest tha these corals hda not been comingled with Indo-Pacific species at the ReefSavers facility in Houston, and because I did not have enough quarantined space available, many of the corals have been placed in a large system where we are doing a growth study on Tridacna clams.

The corals could not be returned to the Sanctuary for restoration. This is just common sense.

.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok two points;

1) Eric Borneman did know that the corals were contaminated due to their being in the same room as pacific corals. The possibility of contamination is the same as contaminated.

2) Eric Borneman had a plan in place to deal with this contamination. This leaves a question; It there any approved method to surface sterilize corals intended to be used for reef restoration?

1) That is just common sense.

2) There is no method of surface sterilization.

 

[StevenPro]

Ok, sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

Do not misunderstand two of the agencies you contacted about this either.

While they will be your best friend in helping you with this, I'm sure their agenda is taken to a much higher level and has a twist you might not see coming.

They will present this exactly like it is. They will present this, and rightly so, as a conflict of interest. Someone in the community, more strongly aligned with the pet industry, who smoked NOAA into giving them a permit for protected corals, to take to a facility that was more strongly aligned with the pet industry. Then it all fell apart.

They will come up with many reasons, using just the facts, to use this as an example of why all collection for the pet industry should stop.

Either way, the ball is in motion and nothing can stop it. They have the information, they are in the process of getting more information. Do not kid yourself, they are aligned with the Sanctuary on this also. They will not blame the Sanctuary. If they find what they are looking for, only the pet industry will take the blame.

Why in the world would you put Sara in touch with these people?

 

[Anonymous]

I did not put her in touch those people. She figured that out all on her own.

As long as she is in touch with them, someone needs to tell her what to look out for.

 

[sihaya]

Actually, I'm not entirely sure who Cracker2 is talking about... I called Reef Relief to see if they had any suggestions on how I might be able to get more info. I did what Deevon told me to do, but so far I haven't gotten any more official information from anyone (though it's only been a few days).

In any case, to be honest, even I'm kinda frustrated and tired with this now. I think there is both a lot of information here AND a lot of speculation here. I was hoping that by posting what I had, more information would turn up. And it has to some degree, but there's still a lot more I wish we all had.

Note: Even if all the threads on this topic are closed, if I do get any more info, it will be posted on the website... so if you're still interested, do check back periodically.