Well, I imagine the HSRC has their own version of events (their website appears lean towards the dramatic side of things); however, their version of events do not match version of events from regulatory agencies in Canada and the US.
NOAA acknowledged that it had provided the project with 20 instrument laden-buoys that drift in the ocean for a year or more and measures water temperature salinity and other characteristics. Such buoys are often set out on what the agency calls “vessels of opportunity,” and the data they provide, upload to satellites, is publicly available.
But a spokesman said the agency had been misled by the group (HSRC), which “did not disclose that it was going to discharge material into the ocean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/s...nt-in-pacific-alarms-marine-experts.html?_r=0
and more
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/408894/feds-haida-at-odds-over-ocean-fertilization-2/
If you read first article you will see that Mr. George’s version of events conflict with Canadian officials and the marine science community (in this case Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research). Are they all lying and Mr. George is telling the truth? In my opinion…not likely.
From the media reports that I have read the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) met with Environment Canada officials about disposal at sea legislation. The representatives from the HSRC were informed that this sort of activity whether inside or outside Canadian waters would be a violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, except for the purpose of legitimate research. Environment Canada never received an ocean fertilization application under the Disposal at Sea program before this activity began. Hopefully, we will likely find out more after the investigation.
In my opinion, the HSRC were not very forthcoming with their plans because they knew how controversial they would be. This is not that unlike those that do work in and around water without approval. Following the proper channels can take too long for some people and there is always the concern of rejection. In these situations, some people feel it is easier to plead ignorance and ask for forgiveness later.
Again, I ask you this question…How can we be careful and include the best science to monitor that these projects are done right if people at the HSRC are not forthcoming with information about their activities? If you against this “war on science” by our government then how can you support individuals who are evasive to any sort of questioning about the study, its results (even preliminary) and the research team participants? I agree that our politicians in Ottawa are not being very nice to our scientists these days, but how is science benefited by having people at the HSRC doing roughly the same thing by being evasive about their own science. Why should I have to do Google searches and watch a CBC documentary to attempt to find out more?
I am not against this type of work carried out, but it needs to be done transparently and properly. Fertilization of water bodies is not a new concept as it has been done on large nursery lakes in the BC Interior and Southwestern part of the province (see studies with “Stockner”). Agentaqua brings up some interesting questions on this work done by the HSRC. If you read the Nature article I posted merely creating a bloom does not necessarily equate to salmon smolts being fed. In addition, there is also potential danger that indiscriminate fertilization could create toxic algae which could be extremely harmful to marine life – not just salmon. Lastly, there was once a time when we thought that Mysis shrimp was a good idea to help out Kokanee in the Okanagan.
