When I inquired as to why the MNR was netting on Lake Temagami in the summer of 2009 I was
told that it was all part of a study to create a baseline for assessing the health of lakes in Zone 11. Lakes
were chosen at random with Lake Temagami and Lake Nipissing added because of their importance.
When I asked what the study hoped to find I was told information such as: species and number of fish,
fork and total length, bony structure and age, sex and maturity, gonad weight, organ weight,
contaminants, etc. Although the information is important, the studies are horribly redundant on lakes like
Temagami and Nipissing. In recent years Temagami and Nipissing have been the most scientifically
studied fisheries in Ontario because of their respective Stewardship Councils. Temagami, for example had
all that information supposedly sought in this 2009 study, gathered in studies conducted in 2001, 2006 and
again in 2007. In the same time frame there were at least 12 other fisheries related studies conducted with
the data added to the body of knowledge on the Temagami fishery. Noting that the 2009 netting was
coordinated from Timmins and the previously gathered science was headquartered in North Bay speaks
volumes to the incompetence of the MNR in not knowing what information they have in their own data
banks.

When we had a Stewardship in Temagami I was always impressed that the first question the
directors asked about any netting study was that the biologist justify the killing of 250 fish with the
significance of the scientific information to be gathered. The biologist and in extension the Ministry was
being held accountable that the information gathered was the best possible science and that the resultant
gathered data would be beneficial in preserving, protecting, restoring and improving the fisheries
resource. We were also extremely fortunate in having fisheries scientists from Laurentian and Nipissing
Universities conduct fisheries research and extrapolate the data. The resultant reports had the opportunity
to be free of politically motivated bias and hopefully would provide strategies to best enhance the fishery.
If you believe that the reduction of MNR areas in 2005 from 37 to 20 in something called an
ecological framework for fisheries management was anything more than a reduction in cost and service
by the MNR. Then you probably believe that this one cheep study will provide useful science to enhance
our fisheries. Just because a lake is in a certain area doesn’t mean the lake has the same ecology as any of
the other lakes in the area. Temagami for example does not have a lake with a comparable ecosystem in
Ontario let alone Zone 11. This cheep one size fits all science is only another attempt by the MNR to
appear to be interested in the fishery and do the best they can with the lack of funding and the lack of
political will provided by the Liberal government.

With the beginning of this new year and new decade it would behoove all of us who value our
natural resources to demand better from the MNR and their political masters in Toronto. It is time to end
the degradation of both the MNR and our natural resources. It is time to demand that this once venerable
Ministry change to better reflect the world of the 21st century and that the government restore the funding
necessary for the MNR to preserve, protect, restore and improve Ontario’s natural resources for all.

Gaye Smith
Former Chairman Temagami Stewardship Council
R.R.#3, Paisley, Ont.
519-353-7275