Sirfishalot Posted April 12, 2011 Report Share Posted April 12, 2011 This just in ..Removal of the ice boom is in full swing today....you all know what that means...upper and lower are going to suck for a couple ..but bring on the PERCH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishfight Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 What is the purpose of the boom being there? Can anyone explain the reason government created it? anything to do with fishing? Sorry for my ignorance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Fishfight , here's a good explanation I Googled up ........ http://www.ijc.org/r...lace-info_e.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 and not that I agree but here's the oppositions side of the story. Interesting read http://bantheboom.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Chopin Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 It wasn't created for fishing but I imagine without holding the ice back from the river, Lake Erie would never freeze over and help keep the water clean for the lower river guys and create ice fishing opportunities on Erie....so I'm guessing it was an angler that helped develop it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottedGARRR Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 What part or parts of that theory do you disagree with Dan? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Joe Barett's theory is interesting . We should always heed the other side of the story . As he said , the lakes have been flowing without the need for a boom for thousands of years . I agree we need more independent studies on this . Maybe we are doing more damage than the cormorants do to our fishing habitat etc . When he mentioned the Bay Street boys making more money with the boom in place , I am apt to believe Joe's concerns all the more . My own theory about the "experts" that the governments base their ideals on is , they can be paid off to say whatever the Bay Street boys want to hear , or lose government funding . We need to do what is best for the lake . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 What part or parts of that theory do you disagree with Dan? Just curious. Didn't say that I disagree either. I think what he says makes sense actually but I haven't yet heard any opposition to his theory which also might make sense. So my ears are still open. I know that without the boom our energy needs are in danger but his theory clearly points out that the health of the Lake suffers as a result. Catch 22. I'd like to see it not installed for one year and see the results but that might result in massive damage at our power plants which we all pay for. No energy is clean energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottedGARRR Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Not that I know anything about our power plants or how the ice damages them, but couldn't smaller less impacting booms be installed in areas where ice flow would effect power generation? Instead of cutting off the entire river? Also, I'm not sure one year of no ice boom would prove any real results, opposed to how many years it has been used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 I was suggesting one year just to see what detrimental effect would arise. It would take a generation to see the beneficial results I would guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottedGARRR Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Ahh, understood =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredfisher Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 solar energy pretty close to clean energy..1 year no boom MAY=consumer electricity rate increase and/or less opportunity for hardwater angling fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishfight Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Thanks for Smerch and Chili's interesting read articles. Always something new to learn related to our fishing. I told my wife that getting into fishing has made me smarter, I have became inquisitive, explored many different areas within US and Ontario, experimented with different techniques to become better in fishing. Funny to ponder how fishing can change one's character and habits. For the first 10 years since I have immigrated to GTA, I have no urgency to even step foot on the famous Niagara Falls district, until I heard of the whirlpool fishing. First time I went to the whirlpool with a buddy, I did not even know that there was a stairway trail down. Through my determination (or stupidity), we went straight across the parking lot, and hike down the steep slope, mostly sliding with our butt. I did not even worry how we can make it back up. It was kind of scary holding our rods on one hand and grabing any tree branches on the other hand to prevent our fall. By the time we got down there and casted, we both landed two steelehead within half an hour. It was Victoria weekend, and everyone beside us landed as well. That adventurous day to remember was more than 10 years ago. Two weeks ago,I was one our way back from a day trip to Buffalo with my wife and daughter, when I saw the Ice boom and the ice formation one one side of the lake. I was confuse how ice formed on one spot and no ice formation on Niagara river. Then sirfishalot posted the info on the Ice boom at Erie..... then these article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammercarp Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Didn't say that I disagree either. I think what he says makes sense actually but I haven't yet heard any opposition to his theory which also might make sense. So my ears are still open. I know that without the boom our energy needs are in danger but his theory clearly points out that the health of the Lake suffers as a result. Catch 22. I'd like to see it not installed for one year and see the results but that might result in massive damage at our power plants which we all pay for. No energy is clean energy The guy starts out with "bad science" Quote from the first paragragh." The ice you see on the surface actually forms well below. As water chills it becomes denser and sinks. When it reaches the moment it goes from water to ice, it freezes on particulate matter." Water reaches it's maximum density at around 4oC. Also the water looses heat through it's surface when the air is colder than the water.So the surface water looses heat to the air and drops in temperature. It then sinks. As it sinks it encounters water higher in temperature . It cannot freeze here. It chills this water until a temperture of 4oC is reached. Then what happens is that the colder water at the surface cannot sink because the water under it is denser. The less dense colder water is now trapped on the surface. When it reaches 0oC it freezes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisb Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Some interesting reading. http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/niagara/iceboomreport2007.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.