Thanks for keeping on top of this GLC - and your links. It is both an interesting and relevant debate that could have serious implications to something we all take seriously - our fish stocks.I think we can all agree that the way this was done was questionable at best.
Putting that aside... what was done may have been part of the reason why we are seeing an uptick in stocks.
I would like to see more research into this to see if this is a valid project.
Not sure about you guy's but I like getting limits when I go out fishing...
At this point I think we need solutions because depending on our leaders is not working out.
Our leaders seem to have their heads in the sand and "business as usual" rules the day.
I agree with your comments GLC - and the way I see this so-called "experiment" - a lost opportunity.
Instead of having a fly-by-night promoter dictating the methodology - they should of had been more serious about seeing if the "experiment" actually worked.
As I wrote earlier on this thread:
"1st of all - you wouldn't dump it past the 200km boundary in the hopes that you wouldn't get charged by EC. You would carefully design where to get the biggest bang for you buck. As I wrote at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/...-C-coast/page4
GLG posted a good link at http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/showthread.php?21337-Iron-sulfate-dumped-off-B-C-coast/page4 about a Southern Ocean experiment where they used a hexafluoride tracer to prove that it was their iron that made a difference. Has/is this group doing the same? Should they? Should they use a less toxic tracer? How do you tell it was your iron that made a difference?
Apparently in the Southern experiment they noticed a 10% drawdown of carbon dioxide and a significant increase in diatoms which use silica to make their shells called tests. Did this group test for CO2 and silica before and after at surface and at depth where diatoms sink to? Did they look at oxide, methane, or dimethylsulfide levels at depth where diatoms would decompose before and after? What are the implications of an increase in diatoms – who benefits, who looses?
For the Southern Ocean experiment they sowed an area of the ocean that had abundant plant nutrients but lacking plankton - formally termed high-nitrate low-chlorophyll (HNLC) areas. Biggest bang for the buck there. A little iron for the photosynthesis reaction, and BINGO a bloom since the other nutrients are there.
Did these guys look at that? Do we have areas that could give a big bang for little tweaking?"
They could have easily added plankton studies to their methodology before/after the "experiment" - along with juvenile feeding studies.
The link for the plankton study you gave GLC stated That the "experiment" COULD HAVE had an impact. IF that impact translated into more fish is anyone's guess at this point. I call that a missed opportunity.
The Haida are left paying the rather large bills, and we are all left guessing at this point - all because (IMHO) this was a carbon credit scam rather than a science experiment.
Last edited by a moderator:
