-russ-george-illegally-dumped-iron-pacific-salmon-catches-

[Derby]

http://www.planetexperts.com/two-years-russ-george-illegally-dumped-iron-pacific-salmon-catches-400/

 

[Salmon Seeker]

Praise be to Russ George!

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for this Derby. It kinda follows along from 2 other threads on this:
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?26530-QCI-Iron-Dump&highlight=iron
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...n-sulfate-dumped-off-B-C-coast&highlight=iron

Short version: Haida on the line for the some $1+M
MAY have had an impact, but because the front-end science was not done - cannot really tell
really was a carbon credit scheme
jury is out on cost effectiveness

 

[shuswap]

George’s money?? Yeah, right…lol. Haida people invested millions into George’s venture and put their trust in him. Revitalize an ocean region? Whatever…lol. It’s called carbon credits. The salmon angle was the bait George used to his advantage to get support – support from a community with high unemployment and aspirations of having more salmon return. If it was in the best interests of the Haida why was George forced to resign? Disney knows. Where’s the data to show the validity of these claims? Do I have to go to Planetexpert.com to find this out? Just because pink salmon numbers are up it can’t just attribute it to this experiment. If it is that simple then George or the HSRC should show other researchers their data, but just saying that numbers are up because we added more food leave many other unanswered questions.

How do we know that this bloom coincided with the juvenile pink salmon distribution at the time? The iron would feed phytoplankton which would in turn feed zooplankton, but how do we know if there was a significant concentration of zooplankton produced and if so how long did it last for? If it’s just a small burst does it really explain this increase of pink salmon numbers? How does any increase in phytoplankton levels after this release compare to background levels during the same time period? Why are other researchers not able to be involved in reviewing this data? If you ask for it you will be told it’s proprietary. That’s how truly open this science is. As for being transparent with these plans with the Canadian officials, Disney wasn’t very forthcoming with all details because even the Americans (NOAA) were misled with the use of their buoys by this project. I am not necessarily against these types of experiments as fertilizing water bodies to increase fish production is not new, but it how it was handled and how it continues to be handled is just so wrong.

 

[GLG]

What an effen mess....
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/com...esearch-LENR-and-Plankton-Carbon-Credit.shtml

 

[agentaqua]

What Shuswap said x 2: good post! I liked the "Russ George at Sea" pic from your link, GLG. Kinda sums-up the whole approach.

 

[GLG]

Where’s the data to show the validity of these claims?

How do we know that this bloom coincided with the juvenile pink salmon distribution at the time? The iron would feed phytoplankton which would in turn feed zooplankton, but how do we know if there was a significant concentration of zooplankton produced and if so how long did it last for? If it’s just a small burst does it really explain this increase of pink salmon numbers? How does any increase in phytoplankton levels after this release compare to background levels during the same time period? Why are other researchers not able to be involved in reviewing this data?

I am not necessarily against these types of experiments as fertilizing water bodies to increase fish production is not new, but it how it was handled and how it continues to be handled is just so wrong.

Agreed with what you said...

I don't have access to this paper but perhaps there is some info here.


http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0298#.VLggvdLF-0x
Linking phytoplankton phenology to salmon productivity along a north/south gradient in the Northeast Pacific Ocean

Michael J Malick, Sean P Cox, Franz J. Mueter, Randall M Peterman
Published on the web 07 January 2015.
Received June 26, 2014.


ABSTRACT

We investigated spatial and temporal components of phytoplankton dynamics in the Northeast Pacific Ocean to better understand the mechanisms linking biological oceanographic conditions to productivity of 27 pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) stocks. Specifically, we used spatial covariance functions in combination with multi-stock spawner-recruit analyses to model relationships among satellite-derived chlorophyll a concentrations, initiation date of the spring phytoplankton bloom, and salmon productivity. For all variables, positive spatial covariation was strongest at the regional scale (0-800 km) with no covariation beyond 1500 km. Spring bloom timing was significantly correlated with salmon productivity for both northern (Alaska) and southern (British Columbia) populations, although the correlations were opposite in sign. An early spring bloom was associated with higher productivity for northern populations and lower productivity for southern populations. Furthermore, the spring bloom initiation date was always a better predictor of salmon productivity than mean chlorophyll a concentration. Our results suggest that changes in spring bloom timing resulting from natural climate variability or anthropogenic climate change could potentially cause latitudinal shifts in salmon productivity.

 

[shuswap]

What an effen mess....
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/com...esearch-LENR-and-Plankton-Carbon-Credit.shtml

Thanks. Seems like the warning bells went off with the Credit Union but the council decided to ignore the advice. I guess they are kicking themselves now for not doing some due diligence before proceeding to writing the cheque. Live and learn I guess. That George is something else.

 

[Fishing?]

It seems to me that the returning record numbers of Columbia chinook coincide with the plankton blooms. These fish stay in the ocean longer than the Pinks, even the numbers of Coho have increased.

Seems the report was very narrow in examining the effect and used words like, might and could, a lot. Those words indicate speculation not evidence.

If I put a fish at the base of my roses and they grow bigger and better I don't need an expert telling me the fish might have contributed to the enhanced the growth and could have an effect.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Fishing?, I think that is exactly what Shuswap was asking … if salmon are the flowers and the copper/plankton productivity the fertilizer in your example, the Q's being asked are: Were the fish around when the bloom effect occurred, How long did the bloom effect last, What was the increase in phytoplankton and/or zooplankton biomass as a result, etc, etc etc. More akin to chucking some fertilizer out of a mile high airplane and hoping it hits some flowerbeds without the proper study design.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[agentaqua]

Well said Ukee = great analogy! And Russ got someone else to pay for the pots and potting soil, while he had a nice flight...

 

[Bear]

Heard he was down in South America pitching his B.S..