P
Pedro
Guest
I read the entire thread and i do not see any merit to smear his name at all, sorry! I think it's much to do about nothing! But to each his own!
Eric Borneman controversy.
- Thread starter bad coffee
- Start date
- Location
- Howell, NJ
:arg: it must suck to get caught..
I personally think you need to read the entire thread to see that there's not much there. Of course the website is going to paint a different picture, that's what it was created to do. It only portraits one side of the story. There's more than meets the eye.
People are making a big stink about this, but there's far worse things going on around the world with exporters/importers and yet noone makes a website about that. But of course it's easier to pinpoint one guy that was a piece os a puzzle and blame him.
I waited to read the thread before commenting for this particular reason. I wanted to see what the hoopla was about.
I stand by my prior statement!
People are making a big stink about this, but there's far worse things going on around the world with exporters/importers and yet noone makes a website about that. But of course it's easier to pinpoint one guy that was a piece os a puzzle and blame him.
I waited to read the thread before commenting for this particular reason. I wanted to see what the hoopla was about.
I stand by my prior statement!
People keep saying this, but I don't understand why. I filed a FOIA REQUEST for ALL available information on the CDHC Model Corals Project while chaired by Eric Borneman.
What I got is what I got. I didn't ask for just "one side of the story." I didn't ask for "info that makes Mr. Borneman look bad." I asked for *ANY* and *ALL* information on the project. You can't assume that just because the documents make a person (or several people) look bad that that must mean there's something wrong with the documents. Sometimes you just have to accept what's there (or not there).
I certainly respect your decision to put up the website, after all it's your given right.
But i wonder what really made you take it upon yourself to go after HIM specifically. Is this a case of "I'll teach you a lesson"? That's what bothers me.
Plain and simple everything was documented and there was an inventory given of what was taken. So how the hell is the picture painted that he sneaked in with a truck and looted the place? Comeon be serious. Whatever beef you guys had is between you two, i could care less.
What do you feel about the store that lost 350 fish during a shipment? Will you create a page and go after the exporter? Probably not, unless it was headed by Mr. EB right?
For those that haven't read it, here it is.
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=102767&start=720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
This man has contributed more to the hobby than you, me, and a whole lot of people on this site and others. Everything i have seen so far points to no wrongdoing and it's all gossip!
Until something concrete and factual comes out, i will stand by my decision.
Again, i respect your desires, for whatever reason it is.
But i wonder what really made you take it upon yourself to go after HIM specifically. Is this a case of "I'll teach you a lesson"? That's what bothers me.
Plain and simple everything was documented and there was an inventory given of what was taken. So how the hell is the picture painted that he sneaked in with a truck and looted the place? Comeon be serious. Whatever beef you guys had is between you two, i could care less.
What do you feel about the store that lost 350 fish during a shipment? Will you create a page and go after the exporter? Probably not, unless it was headed by Mr. EB right?
For those that haven't read it, here it is.
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=102767&start=720&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
This man has contributed more to the hobby than you, me, and a whole lot of people on this site and others. Everything i have seen so far points to no wrongdoing and it's all gossip!
Until something concrete and factual comes out, i will stand by my decision.
Again, i respect your desires, for whatever reason it is.
Well, it doesn't really matter who he is. If I'd heard about anyone else taking truck loads of protected Florida corals to a commercial distributor (under a research permit!) I'd be curious no matter who the person was/is. In this case, there is the added shock value of it being one of our hobby leaders, but still... I'd want to know about this no matter who it involved.
Well, the inventory is vague (even if it was submitted as instructed by FKNMS). In Borneman's RK article, he states to have taken several colonies >50cm. What I find especially curious is the idea that the FKNMS would want to know which corals are 5cm vs. 10cm but not corals that are >20cm vs. 50+cm. Personally, it looks to me, from the very way they asked for the corals to be inventoried, that they only wanted people taking frags of ~20cm or smaller.
It depends why the fish were lost and if this is information I could get. But in general, I don't have the time or resources to pursue every mysterious fish and/or coral death in the country (even if I really wanted to). This project happened to catch my attention and I was able to get info on it... so I posted it.
Thank you
The problem is that while you "didn't ask for just "one side of the story."", there is no indication that you sought our Mr. Borneman's side of the story. The e-mails and documents, most of which are innocuous in of themselves, only relay the concerns of some at NOAA and do not contain Borneman's responses to these concerns. Borneman is easily tracked down and a simple e-mail to him would have either balanced your site with his response or with the quintessential reporters tool which indicates that he did not respond to inquires.
You took it upon yourself to dig into the matter which is commendable, but you only dug halfway. Especially since Borneman's response to the allegations is admittedly missing.
As far as getting his side of the story, I think the only thing he said was something like “It’s all lies and I am going to sue the people who put up the website.” Not an exact quote but that’s about all he said. He deletes any thread in his Marine Depot forum that mentions the website and refuses to give his side of the story. It’s been verified the docs on that site are real.
It’s like he thinks everything will blow over if he pretends it never happened. If he didn’t do anything wrong, it would be pretty easy for him to clear things up by giving his side of the story. But he refuses to which is an admission of guilt as far as I am concerned.
It’s like he thinks everything will blow over if he pretends it never happened. If he didn’t do anything wrong, it would be pretty easy for him to clear things up by giving his side of the story. But he refuses to which is an admission of guilt as far as I am concerned.
The only people he has to respond to is the authorities. Not a website, not a forum member! If he did something wrong, he would have been found guilty and gotten into trouble. Did any of this happen? NO
Let's get over this, it's all BS and let's move on. Even the Administartor on reefs.org labeled it speculation hence the thread was closed. How many other boards is this going to appear on? And where does it lead to? Nothing!
The picture painted is suspect, the whole controversy is suspect and speculative, so therefore there's no point in trying to bring the man down.
I know we are all passionate about this hobby, but when personal motives get involved, that's another different ballgame! I am pretty sure if this was Joe Blow that not one of us would have heard about this.
To be perfectly honest, i don't see why this thread is open as well. Everything has already been discussed on other boards, and this serves no purpose other than to further continue with the personal vendetta.
That's it for me, i'm done on this thread. You guys can play Detective, Judge, and Executioner on this thread. I'll just sit back and enjoy!
Have fun!
Let's get over this, it's all BS and let's move on. Even the Administartor on reefs.org labeled it speculation hence the thread was closed. How many other boards is this going to appear on? And where does it lead to? Nothing!
The picture painted is suspect, the whole controversy is suspect and speculative, so therefore there's no point in trying to bring the man down.
I know we are all passionate about this hobby, but when personal motives get involved, that's another different ballgame! I am pretty sure if this was Joe Blow that not one of us would have heard about this.
To be perfectly honest, i don't see why this thread is open as well. Everything has already been discussed on other boards, and this serves no purpose other than to further continue with the personal vendetta.
That's it for me, i'm done on this thread. You guys can play Detective, Judge, and Executioner on this thread. I'll just sit back and enjoy!
Have fun!
That's not how you use FOIA. You can't FOIA request someone's "side of the story." You can only ask for documentation on a particular project, decision, case, etc.... and that's what I did.
He's aware of the site and he has made it clear that he has no interest in stating his position or telling his "side of the story." And I'm sorry, but this isn't a court trial and I can't exactly supeona the man to testify. If he wanted to have his voice heard, I'm sure we'd all stop and listen. I'd even post what he has to say if he wanted me to.
Thank you... but if I've only dug half-way, it's only because I've hit rock and can't get down any further. I *am* trying. I'm still writing letters, still making calls... but you know how the government is...
I am fully aware of how a FOIA request works, having submitted many under both federal and state requlations. My point is that before you put up your website, it does not appear that you made any attempt to contact Borneman. It is this point, and only this point that I take issue with. I do not doubt the reliability of the documents, that you have but rightfully point out that you are missing probably one of the most important documents, Borneman's response.
He may be aware of your site, but if I was advising him I woud never let him respond to your site at this time. You made no effort to contact him and get his side of the story before going public thereby demonstrating a bias.
He may be aware of your site, but if I was advising him I woud never let him respond to your site at this time. You made no effort to contact him and get his side of the story before going public thereby demonstrating a bias.
OK
But after multiple posts in this forum rasing this very issue, this is the first time you are mentioning this. Each of your responses in this thread has been along the lines that you can only post what the government gives you and you are hoping for more information from them. Furthermore, your website doesn't indicate that you made any such attempt.
Since you are obviously very good at documenting your inquires into this matter, to such an extent that you have provided copies of the FOIA requests themselves. Perhaps you could post copies of the e-mails/correspondence you have sent to Broneman in an attempt to get his side of the story. If you contacted him in some other fashion, provide the detail such as when and where and the sum and substance of such communications, so that your reporting on this matter takes on the air of being fair and balanced.
Well, I just don't see why my asking him but not getting an answer was important or relevant.
I understand why you think it only proper courtesy to ask someone personally first before you file a FOIA request about one of their projects. And I agree with you and I did ask. But aside from that point, I don't see any need for (or any good that can come from) me posting personal email conversations I've had with Mr. Borneman.
I understand why you think it only proper courtesy to ask someone personally first before you file a FOIA request about one of their projects. And I agree with you and I did ask. But aside from that point, I don't see any need for (or any good that can come from) me posting personal email conversations I've had with Mr. Borneman.
So which was it. You contacted him "but not getting an answer", or you had "personal e-mail conversations" with him. Those two statements don't seem consistent.
And I am not concenred with the "proper courtersy" that one shoud engage in such situations. I am concerned with the "single source" mentality presented throughout your site and the subsequent discussion on this forum.
You took it upon yourself to seek out certain information and then post it for the world to see. If you contacted him in regard to your investigation of this alleged incident, then I think the ensuing correspondence is extremely relevant to the issue. If he came back and said "I didn't do it" that is very important, if he came out "No comment" or conversly "I stole them and you aint never getting them back" then that is also important.
Basicly what you did was seek out information from two souces, through FOIA and Borneman, and then only posted information from one source and stated that if you they sent you more informtion you would post it. Very unbalanced reporting.
They're not inconsistent. In the past, I had many long email conversations with Eric about all kinds of things. I don't think I ever emailed him asking about this episode in complete isolation of any other of a variety of topics we might have been talking about at the time.
Like I just said, I asked him a few times but he never wanted to talk about it. And now I can kinda see why...
check it out:
http://keynoter.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/news08.txt
Though, honestly, I think this article probably has even less information than my site. And I'm not sure I agree with the way they make it sound like just as many corals were returned as were taken. What they don't seem to be accounting for is the variation in the sizes of the "pieces" of corals taken vs. the ones that were returned (at least that seems to be the case when you compare the two inventories). So just comparing the #s of "pieces" taken and returned *could be* a bit misleading.
I do think it's interesting though that this was the first time in *17 years* that the FKNMS has ever recalled corals taken under a research permit. At least that affirms what I've been saying all along... that this was a BIG deal.
http://keynoter.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/news08.txt
Though, honestly, I think this article probably has even less information than my site. And I'm not sure I agree with the way they make it sound like just as many corals were returned as were taken. What they don't seem to be accounting for is the variation in the sizes of the "pieces" of corals taken vs. the ones that were returned (at least that seems to be the case when you compare the two inventories). So just comparing the #s of "pieces" taken and returned *could be* a bit misleading.
I do think it's interesting though that this was the first time in *17 years* that the FKNMS has ever recalled corals taken under a research permit. At least that affirms what I've been saying all along... that this was a BIG deal.
Last edited:
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:
