- Status
folks and i were talking on #reefs and we came to the conclusion
that ego and too much ambition lead to this projects downfall.
the mistake that people notice is taking more coral then was permitted
by the permit. also taking coral home may have been a mistake.
this was an ambitious project that required a lot of time, planning, and
effort that failed to give the desired results..
if it would have worked, he would have been a hero was a quote
from someone discussing this.
in the end, we think eric should just admit his mistakes and explain
how his project went wrong. own up to it, learn from it, and move on.
that ego and too much ambition lead to this projects downfall.
the mistake that people notice is taking more coral then was permitted
by the permit. also taking coral home may have been a mistake.
this was an ambitious project that required a lot of time, planning, and
effort that failed to give the desired results..
if it would have worked, he would have been a hero was a quote
from someone discussing this.
in the end, we think eric should just admit his mistakes and explain
how his project went wrong. own up to it, learn from it, and move on.
Ok, I said I wouldn't get into the discussion of this... but just to clarify something, the permits are actually a bit vague and one could argue that they don't put an actual size or number limit on the corals. HOWEVER, what the permits do state quite clearly is that none of the corals were to be taken without FKNMS staff supervision... which, apparently, much of them were.
No prob... and please forgive me for probably being too nit-picky. 
And now I have to correct my error... apparently, some of the permits do include some colonies. You see, this is exactly why I'm avoiding the discussion. I'm not more qualified to read the documents than anyone else.
And now I have to correct my error... apparently, some of the permits do include some colonies. You see, this is exactly why I'm avoiding the discussion. I'm not more qualified to read the documents than anyone else.
Not only were they taken without supervision, ones that he was told not to take at all were taken. I believe the permit is also to collect collect them, not take one's that were already collected.
It would have been a great project - weren't there others in the works at the same time? Has the salt study been published? How about the elegance project?
It would have been a great project - weren't there others in the works at the same time? Has the salt study been published? How about the elegance project?
Ok so he took those he wasn't supposed to take, whether told by size or without supervision.
What is this about some coral farming business or something that's also mentioned? Did they go into a "for profit" type business? The place that keeps getting refered to "Go get them, and bring them back"
What is this about some coral farming business or something that's also mentioned? Did they go into a "for profit" type business? The place that keeps getting refered to "Go get them, and bring them back"
The very first sentence of the permit application states explicitly that the corals are going to the Reef Savers facility. "Collections of corals from the FKNMS will be put into permanent culture at the designated facility (Reef Savers, Inc.) ..." Additionally, there is an entire passage on Reef Savers as the "Culture Site" on the second page posted of the permit application. For any of these NOAA individuals to allege later that they did not know that the corals were going to Reef Savers is utterly ridiculous.
Also, the permits for coral collection give no restrictions on coral size. The only mention of taking larger corals than allowed was nearly a year after the permit was issued and 11 months after Eric gives a detailed inventory of what he took, how much, and what size. Why the wait? Also, if Eric was knowingly taking corals larger than allowed, why in the world would he give a detailed description of what he took, how much, and how large? Why not simply falsify the inventory to cover up the removal? That makes no sense.
Also, the permits for coral collection give no restrictions on coral size. The only mention of taking larger corals than allowed was nearly a year after the permit was issued and 11 months after Eric gives a detailed inventory of what he took, how much, and what size. Why the wait? Also, if Eric was knowingly taking corals larger than allowed, why in the world would he give a detailed description of what he took, how much, and how large? Why not simply falsify the inventory to cover up the removal? That makes no sense.
Again, I believe that the reason the permits do not list specific number and size limitations is because:
1) the permit is granted to a whole list of people who might have had different individual interests and needs and
2) the permits state that the corals are only to be collected under direct supervision of FKNMS staff.
Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that these permits intended to be a free pass to any of the people listed to just go take whatever they wanted and justify it later with an honest inventory.
Steven: I understand your point. However, do you really not see how referring to a place conveniently named "reef savers" as the "culture site" might be misunderstood by FKNMS?... especially when the corals are being taken by a representative of a university? ...and especially where NSF grants are put up to fund the project? Note: I'm not talking about FKNMS being purposely mislead... all I'm saying is that I can see how they may have reasonably misunderstood.
But anyway... just for the sake of argument, let's go ahead with the idea that no one took more corals than they thought they were allowed; how does that explain what happened to the corals after that?
1) the permit is granted to a whole list of people who might have had different individual interests and needs and
2) the permits state that the corals are only to be collected under direct supervision of FKNMS staff.
Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that these permits intended to be a free pass to any of the people listed to just go take whatever they wanted and justify it later with an honest inventory.
Steven: I understand your point. However, do you really not see how referring to a place conveniently named "reef savers" as the "culture site" might be misunderstood by FKNMS?... especially when the corals are being taken by a representative of a university? ...and especially where NSF grants are put up to fund the project? Note: I'm not talking about FKNMS being purposely mislead... all I'm saying is that I can see how they may have reasonably misunderstood.
But anyway... just for the sake of argument, let's go ahead with the idea that no one took more corals than they thought they were allowed; how does that explain what happened to the corals after that?
Anyway, I'm not supposed to be talking about this. Steven is an intelligent and skillful debater... and he's once again tempted me into a contentious discussion I swore I'd try to stay out of.
So I'll let him keep the fire going... I gotta get outta here and do some work for school.
Good night all
So I'll let him keep the fire going... I gotta get outta here and do some work for school.
Good night all
Aren't the concerns about using ReefSavers as the culture facility that the corals were not in their own system, that they were mixed with corals and potential pathogens from around the world, and that such mixing begs the question about the possible sale of the coral (although I would think the idea of pathogens would be enough to worry people)?
I might be dreaming though, I read the stuff a couple of days ago.
I might be dreaming though, I read the stuff a couple of days ago.
Thales":3595uy7l said:
The permit application states that all the corals would be given their own system at Reef Savers by geographic distribution. There is also some later discussion in one of the emails that Reef Savers quit taking care of that system (presumably the Floridian corals) and that seemed to have factored into the recall. It was whomever got the corals back that mixed them with Tridacnid clams.
Just to play "devil's advocate"...
1) Yes, the permit application does clearly say the corals are going to "Reef Savers." However, I don't think it clearly says what Reef Savers actually is (i.e. a commercial whole seller). Given the applicant's affiliation with the University of Houston, I can see how the FKNMS got confused. Should they have asked for more details about "Reef Savers?" Yeah, I would think so... but that doesn't necessarily mean that they knew what Reef Savers was all along.
2) In the email about the condition of the returned corals, it mentions that since the corals were held at a commercial whole seller also housing Indo-Pacific corals, there's no way they could assume that the corals weren't contaminated. That's not to say they necessarily were... however, it left the researcher receiving the corals no choice but to assume they already were (this is apparently how he justifies putting them in the clam tanks).
--
1) Yes, the permit application does clearly say the corals are going to "Reef Savers." However, I don't think it clearly says what Reef Savers actually is (i.e. a commercial whole seller). Given the applicant's affiliation with the University of Houston, I can see how the FKNMS got confused. Should they have asked for more details about "Reef Savers?" Yeah, I would think so... but that doesn't necessarily mean that they knew what Reef Savers was all along.
2) In the email about the condition of the returned corals, it mentions that since the corals were held at a commercial whole seller also housing Indo-Pacific corals, there's no way they could assume that the corals weren't contaminated. That's not to say they necessarily were... however, it left the researcher receiving the corals no choice but to assume they already were (this is apparently how he justifies putting them in the clam tanks).
--
Lack of an informational response on this accusation sure doesn't look good, IMO. What the whole story is I have little doubt we only know a little of ... but unless I hear a different story, I'm liable to believe more of the one that gives the most information.
- 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:
