I applaud and support the…

I applaud and support the efforts to develop a management plan to maintain a healthy and sustainable walleye population in the Lake of the Woods.
From a quick review of the draft plan, I have four comments.
(1) A plan like this can only work if it is based on the best available evidence which here comes from fish and ecosystem science. In this regard, I am surprised by the paucity of scientific references in the bibliography. Is this a sad commentary on the state of research in Ontario and Canada? For example, on page 26 a 1978 study by Christie is quoted as follows "reductions in open seasons seldom reduce harvest in a meaningful way" in order to dismiss any potential for considering changes to the open seasons. It may be that Christie's work has been unequaled in the past 45 years but if this is so then it must have been referenced by many more recent works which are the ones which should have been listed here in relation to Christie's seminal paper. As it appears in the draft plan, the conclusion cannot be supported by a paper of this antiquity, given all the ecosystem and social changes in the past four decades. A quick glance at the references shows very few peer reviewed papers listed here were written recently, although these are the scientific evidence needed to develop such a plan - . Many, like the paper by Christie are too old to be referenced alone without more recent references referring to them and supporting their old but still valid conclusions with newer evidence. A majority of the more recent references are in-house papers or non-scientific reports.
With the above, I am not saying that the science underlying the conclusions made in the report are incorrect; I am saying that the conclusions are not adequately supported by the science as it is presented in the report.
(2) My second point is somewhat similar to the first. The creel surveys are the primary evidence of what is happening with the walleye population. Now I have not read them, but when I read the report these surveys assume a great importance as the basis upon which the entire argument is based. I would have liked to have seen some discussion of the methodology of these surveys, not only their validity and reliability but also their adequacy in terms of providing the basis for the projections. I am not criticizing the use of this evidence to draw the conclusions, but rather how it is presented in the plan.
(3) My third point concerns the need for future data to understand and assess the impact of any new plan. This should be part of the planning process itself.
(4) And my fourth point is a question about why Minnesota data and reporting on the south end of the Lake system is not included in this plan since the fish do not go through customs. I learned at a forum on Lake water quality that Minnesota has better research in this area than existed in Canada. Is the same true for research on fish populations? If so, it needs to be part of the plan.
Thank you for this work