Recent content by gwaco

thank you mr. koch for coming on here and showing us that atleast someone involved in this has some integrity.

someone(s) got something out of this , or it would not have been done in the first place ! meanwhile reefsavers is left holding the bag ?

so where did my tax money go to if it was not given to reef savers to cover cost ? sounds like a misappropriation of funds !

sara , look at the seal on the top of the permits ! what does it say :wink: . i'm here to help you , you just don't know it yet :lol: !

be that as it may , they still gave the corals to the wrong person ! but why ?

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...

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 .

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

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 !

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 ...

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...

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 .

of course the judge said he had no authority , as they were not his to begin with , the judge would not side otherwise once the permit docs were shown ! but again that should not exonerate him from the damage already done ,

it looks alittle off ! the 250 is so much more intense than the 175 even though both are xm 10ks . the fish could care less ! they swim the whole tank and don't seem to mind .

blue brittle ! don't see it much anymore . hope to have updated pics this weekend ! :D