The Opeongo lake whitefish…

The Opeongo lake whitefish population, one of the most unique and interesting examples of the species, deserves more protection than is currently being given to it. As stated in most of the associated literature, the fish is not subject to habitat loss like most at risk fish in the province but is instead threatened by invasive species like the spiny waterflea. This key difference provides many unique challenges to the management of the fish and limits the options that resource managers have for their protection. While this is understood, it is not the opinion of this commenter that the threats have been adequately managed for. Further, I suggest that the government impacted these fish by introducing cisco to support lake trout fishing and as such, owe them protections above and beyond what may be typically required by the species at risk act.

Essentially, the suggestions provided for their management boil down to hoping that boaters/anglers follow proper procedures for cleaning equipment that may spread invasives. This is a nice thought but how has that approach worked so far? The spiny waterflea is well established in many ecosystems across the province and within at least seven lakes in the park; simply hoping that people follow this protocol is not enough. If implemented, this proposal will surely lead to the eventual deposition and likely establishment of the spiny waterflea much like Como lake where their introduction lead to the extirpation of their unique whitefish population. The fact that seven lakes in the park have already been invaded despite educational efforts being in place for years should be enough evidence for my concerns to be considered valid.

By allowing boating and fishing on the lake to continue as is, we are more or less waiting for the waterfleas to be established. Simply hoping that people follow the rules is not enough and by relying on the good will of the public as the primary method of protection for the population we are dooming them. Most people will follow this, and I applaud them, but it only takes one improperly cleaned boat to more or less destroy the population since it is almost impossible to remove waterfleas once established. Given that the waterflea can reproduce asexually and only one individual waterflea is needed to create a population relatively quickly, this threat is further compounded. This is especially relevant to Opeongo lake as it is frequently used as a starting/ending point for canoe trips and since spiny waterflea are established in the park already, they could also be introduced from nearby lakes as opposed to needing to be brought from entirely different watersheds. This must be addressed lest we lose another population to inaction.

Ideally, shutting the entire lake off to boat traffic and fishing would be the best way to prevent their spread but it is understandable that this would likely be met with opposition from not only the park management but also the public. Given that the waterfleas are already established within the park, and that there is a well-documented case of this rare size pairing being eliminated by the waterfleas, it is this commenters opinion that some sort of closure should be instituted in order to protect this last remaining bastion for them.

There are several different ways that this could be achieved without fully shutting off the lake to the public. The most logical, and one that has been done in other sensitive areas, would be to allow only local boats onto the lake. Perhaps this would take the form of allowing only rental boats or of having a sort of registration program. Given that fishing line is also a frequent method of introduction, a rental fishing gear program could also be implemented. Although these would surely be unpalatable for the public, at worst it would reduce pressure on the lake and at best it would be a major step towards protecting the lake. There are many other lakes in the park with excellent fishing and cheap, decent quality rentals could be a happy middle ground that still allows for resource use as well as protection as a whole.

If any sort of closure is impossible, having mandatory and thorough cleaning of all boats be not just suggested to the public but be carried out by parks staff or similar workers would be more effective than simply suggesting it. Perhaps a sort of “boat wash” similar to a drive through car wash could be implemented and run with staff supervision if having staff physically cleaning the boats is not possible. Although boat washing stations were suggested in the response statement, without oversight this provides very limited protection.

This globally rare population of lake whitefish is more important than having a recreational opportunity on one lake; there are many lakes and only one of them sustain these fish. They cannot afford even a small mistake and although well intentioned, this plan is insufficient to protect the population from meeting the same fate as the Como Lake population.

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments and we hope to hear back from you soon,

Julian Greer
Consultation Advisor for North Eastern Ontario
Métis Nation of Ontario