LAKE STURGEON (ACIPENSER FULVESCENS) MANAGEMENT … · Figure 14: Save the Sturgeon logo (Reprinted...

LAKE STURGEON (ACIPENSER FULVESCENS) MANAGEMENT AND STATUS UPDATE FOR THE LAKE NIPISSING WATERSHED - PART OF THE GREAT LAKES UPPER ST. LAWRENCE

POPULATION, ONTARIO, CANADA

NIKKI COMMANDA

A MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES NIPISSING UNIVERSITY NORTH BAY, ONTARIO

January 2018

© NIKKI COMMANDA 2018

i

Certificate of Examination

ii

Abstract

The Lake Nipissing watershed is situated within the Great Lakes watershed of the province

of Ontario, Canada. The two main objectives of this MRP were to compile all available

secondary data and related information for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon and to provide an

updated status. To accomplish this, their life history, and past/present threats to their

population were considered. To facilitate these objectives each chapter has been structured

to reflect three major resource categories contained within. They include: 1) First Nation

knowledge, rights and responsibilities in relation to Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon generated

through a culturally Indigenous perspective; 2) Relevant written/photographic documentation

pertaining to Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon; 3) Available secondary fisheries (scientific) data

collected through field study for the Lake Nipissing watershed lake sturgeon. Fisheries data

has been organized into three distinct time periods in order to help determine the current

status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon: 1) 1991 - 1995 – immediately after the commercial

fisheries was closed, 2) 2000 - 2005 – ten years post closure of the commercial fisheries, and

3) 2006 - 2012 – 15-21 years post closure of the commercial fisheries. This MRP has taken

the first step towards developing a management strategy by compiling available secondary

data for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Based on the data compiled the recovery status of

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon is not improving.

Keywords

Lake Sturgeon, Lake Nipissing, Threatened Species, Species at Risk, Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK), Robinson-Huron Treaty, First Nation, Mainstream Science (MSS),

Commercial Fisheries

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Reehan Mirza and committee member Scott

Kaufman for the guidance they have provided throughout the process of completing my

Major Research Paper. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Nipissing First

Nation, Dokis First Nation and the Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Centre for their efforts in

providing the data and Traditional Ecological Knowledge needed to complete this project.

Last but not least, I would also like to thank my mother Joanne Allan and my step-mother

Susan Fitzmaurice for their support and encouragement throughout the years and to my

father Dan Commanda who remembers a time when the nm’e (lake sturgeon) were plentiful

in Lake Nipissing. Gchi’miigwech for this painting of ‘Nm’e’ completed by my father for

this MRP in honour of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon and those who strive to protect them.

iv

Table of Contents

Certificate of Examination ................................................................................................... i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ xii

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Life History and Habitat ......................................................................................... 4

1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge ......................................................................... 5

1.3 Fisheries Management ............................................................................................ 7

1.4 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................... 11

2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 3 .......................................................................................................................... 17

3. RESULTS and FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 17

3.1 First Nation Knowledge, Rights and Responsibilities .......................................... 17

3.1.1 Robinson-Huron Treaty ............................................................................ 17

3.1.2 Indigenous Worldview - Traditional Ecological Knowledge ................... 18

3.1.3 Dokis First Nation (DFN) Elder Interviews.............................................. 19

3.1.4 Nipissing First Nation (NFN) ................................................................... 20

v

3.2 Publications/Newspapers/Illustrations/Photographs ............................................. 23

3.2.1 Commercial Fisheries and First Management Efforts .............................. 23

3.2.2 Management Efforts Post Commercial Fisheries ..................................... 34

3.2.3 Habitat ....................................................................................................... 35

3.2.4 Threats and Habitat Destruction ............................................................... 39

3.3 Fisheries Data........................................................................................................ 42

3.3.1 Larval Drift Netting Assessments ............................................................. 42

3.3.2 Fecundity................................................................................................... 43

3.3.3 Mark-Recapture Assessments ................................................................... 44

3.3.4 Population Estimates ................................................................................. 57

Chapter 4 .......................................................................................................................... 59

4. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 59

4.1 First Nation Knowledge, Rights and Responsibilities .......................................... 59

4.2 Publications/Newspapers/Illustrations/Photographs ............................................. 62

4.3 Fisheries Data........................................................................................................ 63

4.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 71

4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 74

References ......................................................................................................................... 75

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 90

Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................ 115

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: South River netting summary and means for spawning lake sturgeon. Data

collected from MNR, NFN and A/OFRC. ...................................................... 45

Table 2: Sturgeon River netting summary and means for spawning lake sturgeon. Data

collected from MNR, NFN and A/OFRC. ...................................................... 45

Table 3: Characteristics of juvenile lake sturgeon caught in Lake Nipissing ............... 48

Table 4: Incidental catch of juvenile lake sturgeon by NFN commercial fishermen

summary and means. ....................................................................................... 48

Table 5: South River and Sturgeon River age classes >15 years old ............................ 54

Table 6: Population estimate summary for the adult lake sturgeon from the South

River, the Sturgeon River and the juveniles from the main portion of the Lake.

......................................................................................................................... 58

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Study area - Lake Nipissing Watershed in comparison to Fisheries

Management Zone 11 & the Great Lakes Watershed (GLIN 2015; MNRF

2016). ................................................................................................................ 1

Figure 2: Bountiful harvest for Art Taillon (left) and Guy Courchesne of the Lake

Nipissing Fishing Company 1975 (Reprinted with the permission of the West

Nipissing Public Library [Musée Sturgeon River House Museum 1975]). ...... 8

Figure 3: Benjamin Goulais (left) and Roy Cockburn (right), circa [1946-1951]

(Reprinted with the permission of Gary Goulais). .......................................... 22

Figure 4: Mr. Roy Cockburn holding a lake sturgeon on the left 1951 and Roy

Cockburn (a.k.a. Caviar King) on the right in 1946 holding lake sturgeon

caviar (Reprinted with the permission of the West Nipissing Public Library

[Musée Sturgeon River House Museum 1951 & 1946]). ............................... 25

Figure 5: Reported commercial harvest, Lake Nipissing (data provided by the Ministry

of Natural Resources, 2014). Carsten Jorgensen, a Biologist from the Lake

Nipissing Fisheries Unit, summarizes some historic information on the

commercial fishery of Lake Nipissing into 6 time periods, they include; 1)

highest production (1900-1907), 2) production decline (1918-1929), 3) harvest

fluctuation (1930-1949), 4) irregular fluctuation and some recovery (1950-

1965), 5) production on steady decline (1966-1972), 6) collapse of

commercial fishery (after 1972). ..................................................................... 26

Figure 6: Reported lake sturgeon harvest from 1929-1991 (data provided by Ministry of

Natural Resources, 2014), Lake Nipissing Commercial Fishery. Highlights

include; revocation of June commercial fisheries closure (1927-1954), 1,814

kg quota set in 1974, quota reduced in 1980 to 907 kg, June closure re-

established in 1981, final closure 1991. .......................................................... 28

Figure 7: Pound-net being set off of the Garden Village shoreline by non-Indigenous

commercial fishermen in 1947 left and lake sturgeon harvested on the right

(Reprinted with the permission of the West Nipissing Public Library

Collection [Musée Sturgeon River House Museum 1947]). ........................... 29

Figure 8: Areas where pound-nets were set in Lake Nipissing prior to 1970 and during

1970 (modified from Young & Love 1971; Natural Resources Canada 2016).

......................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 9: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing caught in

commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexed combined, mean total length for

lake sturgeon at 1323 mm, B) 1971 data, sexed combined, mean total length

for lake sturgeon at 1367 mm. ........................................................................ 31

viii

Figure 10: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing

caught in commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexes combined (R2=0.8185),

mean weight at 17.4 kg, B) 1971 data, sexes combined (R2=0.8542), mean

weight at 16.8 kg. ............................................................................................ 31

Figure 11: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing

caught in commercial pound-nets; 1991 data, sexes combined (R2=0.9062),

mean weight at 19.2 kg. .................................................................................. 32

Figure 12: Age at first spawn. Data from the 1971 Lake Nipissing Lake Sturgeon Report

(n=77) (Young & Love 1971). ........................................................................ 33

Figure 13: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing

caught in commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexes combined, mean age at

23.4 years with 17 age classes (range age-13 to age-48), B) 1971 data, sexes

combined, mean age at 23.2 years with 31 age classes (range age-11 to age-

51). .................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 14: Save the Sturgeon logo (Reprinted with the permission of and in accordance

with a data licence agreement with the MNR 2014 [MNR 1991]). ................ 34

Figure 15: Confirmed spawning locations for lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing are the

Sturgeon River and the South River. The Little Sturgeon River highlighted in

red, no longer supports spawning lake sturgeon. ............................................ 37

Figure 16: Movement Patterns Map (modified from NFN data – supported by AFSAR;

Natural Resources Canada 2016). ................................................................... 39

Figure 17: Commercial catch of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing. Total day harvest of 77

lake sturgeon (for a total of 1,827 lbs. of sturgeon meat and 125 lbs. of caviar)

(Reprinted with the permission of and in accordance with a data agreement

with the MNR 2014 [photo taken by Fluvian 1965; Mosseler 1991]). ........... 40

Figure 18: Estimated fecundity versus weight from the South River and Sturgeon River

locations (1991-1995). Using estimates from Harkness and Dymond (1961).

......................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 19: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from spawning locations in Lake

Nipissing caught in mark-recapture gill net assessments. Length-frequencies

are organized by location and three time periods; A) South River (1992-1995,

2001-2005, 2008-2009); and B) Sturgeon River (1991-1994, 2001-2003,

2006-2012). ..................................................................................................... 46

Figure 20: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from spawning locations in Lake

Nipissing – South River and Sturgeon River caught in the mark-recapture gill

net assessments. Length-frequencies are organized by time period with

locations combined; A) 1991-1995, B) 2001-2005, and C) 2006-2012. ........ 47

ix

Figure 21: Logarithmically transformed length-weight relationships for adult lake

sturgeon from the South River and Sturgeon River (1991-2012) (n=782). .... 49

Figure 22: Logarithmically transformed length-weight relationships for all lake sturgeon

(adult and juvenile) (1991-2012) (n=1093). ................................................... 50

Figure 23: von Bertalanffy growth curve Lt=1666.824, k=0.072, t0=-3.74 for lake

sturgeon from Lake Nipissing (adult and juvenile). ....................................... 51

Figure 24: Age-frequency distribution for juvenile lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing

(2008-2011); A) 2008 mean age at 4.3 years, B) 2009 mean age at 4.2 years,

C) 2010 mean age at 4.2 years, D) 2011 mean age at 3.4 years. .................... 53

Figure 25: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the South River

(2001-2005); A) 2001 mean age at 22.4 years with 15 age classes (range age-

14 - age-39), B) 2002 mean age at 24.8 years with 29 age classes (range age-

13 - age-97), C) 2003 mean age at 25.8 years with 20 age classes (range age-

14 - age-60), D) 2004 mean age at 25.5 years with 23 age classes (range age-

10 - age-66), E) 2005 mean age at 26.5 years with 9 age classes (range age-12

– age-60). ........................................................................................................ 55

Figure 26: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon River

(2001, 2002, 2003); A) 2001 mean age at 20.8 years with 13 age classes

(range age-14 - age-38), B) 2002 mean age at 21.0 years with 10 age classes

(range age-9 – age-46), C) 2003 mean age at 18.1 years with 7 age classes

(range age-10 – age-32). ................................................................................. 56

Figure 27: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon River

(2006 and 2011); A) 2006 mean age at 19.3 years with 16 age classes (range

age-9 – age-48), B) 2011 mean age at 15.5 years with 10 age classes (range

age-11 – age-25). ............................................................................................ 57

Figure 28: Length-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the South River

(1992-1995); A) 1992 mean total length at 1359 mm ± 182 (S.D), B) 1993

mean total length at 1389 mm ± 191.7 (S.D), C) 1994 mean total length at

1322 mm ± 119.9 (S.D), D) 1995 mean total length at 1300 mm ± 147.3

(S.D). ............................................................................................................. 104


(2001-2005); A) 2001 mean total length at 1392 mm ± 130.9 (S.D), B) 2002


1390 mm ± 123.4 (S.D), D) 2004 mean total length at 1359 mm ± 136.5

(S.D), E) 2005 mean total length at 1451 mm ± 179.1 (S.D). ...................... 105



mean total length at 1328 mm ± 118.2 (S.D). ............................................... 106

x

Figure 31: Length-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon River



1332mm ± 190.4 (S.D), D) 1994 mean total length at 1366 mm ± 174.6 (S.D).

....................................................................................................................... 106




1280 mm ± 100.3 (S.D). ............................................................................... 107




1317 ± 137 (S.D). .......................................................................................... 108



mean total length at 1349 mm ± 171.2 (S.D). ............................................... 108

Figure 35: Length-frequency distribution for juvenile lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing

(2008-2012); A) 2008 mean total length at 735 mm ± 118 .3 (S.D), B) 2009

mean total length at 743 mm ± 165.5 (S.D), C) 2010 mean total length at 726

mm ± 210.7 (S.D), D) 2011 mean total length at 645 mm ± 192.7 (S.D), E)

2012 mean total length at 663 mm ± 208.9 (S.D). ........................................ 109

Figure 36: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from the South River

(1992-1995); A) 1992 (R2 = 0.889), B) 1993 (R

2 = 0.8257), C) 1994 (R

2 =

0.7994), D) 1995 (R2 = 0.8391). ................................................................... 110


(2001-2005); A) 2001 (R2 = 0.8534), B) 2002 (R

2 = 0.8567), C) 2003 (R

2 =

0.8373), D) 2004 (R2 = 0.7435), E) 2005 (R

2 = 0.9219). ............................. 111


(2008-2009); A) 2008 (R2 = 0.7846), B) 2009 (R

2 = 0.7423). ..................... 112

Figure 39: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon River

(1991-1994); A) 1991 (R2 = 0.8436), B) 1992 (R

2 = 0.8745), C) 1993 (R

2 =

0.9854), D) 1994 (R2 = 0.9542). ................................................................... 112


(2001-2003); A) 2001 (R2 = 0.7123), B) 2002 (R

2 = 0.8995), C) 2003 (R

2 =

0.8034). ......................................................................................................... 113


(2006-2007); A) 2006 (R2 = 0.9603), B) 2007 (R

2 = 0.8318). ..................... 113

xi


(2011-2012); A) 2011 (R2 = 0.906), B) 2012 (R

2 = 0.9035). ....................... 114

xii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Copy of AFN summarized recommendations for COSEWIC .......................... 90

Appendix B: Copy of the Robinson Treaty 1850 PDF ........................................................... 92

Appendix C: Larval Drift Netting Materials and Methods ................................................... 100

Appendix D: Adult Mark-Recapture Materials and Methods............................................... 101

Appendix E: Juvenile Mark-Recapture Materials and Methods ........................................... 103

Appendix F: Length Frequency Distributions ...................................................................... 104

Appendix G: Length-Weight Relationships.......................................................................... 110

1

Chapter 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Lake Nipissing watershed (a portion of the Ministry of the Natural Resources and

Forestry - MNRF Fisheries Management Zone 11) is situated within the Great Lakes

watershed of the province of Ontario, Canada (Figure 1). Lake Nipissing itself occupies

87,325 hectares and empties into Georgian Bay of Lake Huron via the French River.

There are several dams and natural barriers on the French River between Lake Huron and

Lake Nipissing.

Figure 1: Study area - Lake Nipissing Watershed in comparison to Fisheries

Management Zone 11 & the Great Lakes Watershed (GLIN 2015; MNRF 2016).

Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) living in the Nipissing watershed are part of the

Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence (GLUSL) populations and were previously designated

as ‘special concern’ in 2005 (Environment Canada 2016). In November of 2006, the

Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations became designated as a ‘threatened’

species (Environment Canada 2016). Being identified or designated by the Committee of

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as a threatened species is one

of five categories that the species at risk (SAR) fall within (Environment Canada 2016).

The term ‘threatened’ is defined as “a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered

2

if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction”

(Environment Canada 2016).

In 2001, Canada established a Species at Risk Act (SARA). The SARA was revised in

2002 and amended in 2016 (SARA 2002; Waples et al 2013; Environment Canada 2016).

Under the Species at Risk Act (2002) the Committee of the Status of Endangered

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC [created in 1977]), accepted responsibility to assess the

status of species potentially at risk of endangerment (Waples et al 2013; Environment

Canada 2016). In 2000, a subcommittee of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK)

keepers was formed to assist the COSEWIC with the status assessment process

(Environment Canada 2016). COSEWIC is a committee of experts who assess and

designate wildlife species that are in some danger of disappearing in Canada (2016). The

assessment process and criteria for COSEWIC is available through their website or by

request at local public libraries. There are three sequential steps followed by COSEWIC

to determine species status; 1. Choice of species, 2. Compilation and collection of all

available data found on chosen species, and 3. Assess the species status (Secretariat

COSEWIC 2015).

Currently, Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon is not listed under Canada’s SARA

(Environment Canada 2016) nationwide. However, are currently classified as

‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act in Ontario List as part of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA 2007; Golder Associates Ltd 2011; Species at Risk Act in Ontario List

2016).

In 2007, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in Ontario (ESA 2007; MNRF

2014). Under the ESA, the GLUSL lake sturgeon populations received ‘at risk’

classification by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)

in September of 2009. As part of the ESA, the Ontario Recovery Strategy for Lake

Sturgeon in Ontario currently recognizes the lake sturgeon population status in Lake

Nipissing as extant (exists in the area) and the population trajectory as increasing (Golder

Associates Ltd. 2011; MNRF 2015).

3

Lake sturgeon are of ancient origin and believed to have evolved during the Devonian

period (Age of Fishes) 417 million years ago (Dick et al 2006). Prior to European

contact, lake sturgeon populations were numerous and healthy throughout North America

(Harkness & Dymond 1961). Across their range, there is an estimated surviving

population of less than one percent of their former numbers. Lake sturgeon have been

fished nearly to extinction within 150 years (Crossman et al 2014). Lake sturgeon habitat

has been seriously fragmented during the same brief time period (Golder Associates Ltd

2011). The same story has played out in Lake Nipissing, where the decline of the Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon was the direct result of Canadian commercial fisheries from 1888

to closure in 1991 (MNR data; Seyler 2001).

Lake sturgeon are one of 18 genera of Acipenser included in the 27 sub-families of

Acipenserinae worldwide (White et al 2015; Chiotti et al 2016; Secretariat COSEWIC

2016). There are five species of Acipenser living in Canada. The sturgeon family have a

unique appearance compared to other Actinoptergii or ray-finned fishes (White et al

2015). Sturgeon belong to the subclass Chondrostei – or cartilaginous bony fish – unique

to the class Osteichthyes where their skeleton is entirely cartilaginous. The cartilage

skeleton is one of two internal features that distinguish this subclass. The other internal

feature is the heavily armored head consisting of bony plates (Scott & Crossman 1998;

Peterson et al 2007). The two most noticeable external features that distinguish the

subclass Chondrostei are the heterocercal (shark-like) tail and the lateral rows of scutes or

boney plates extending along the full length of the body (Harkness & Dymond 1961;

Scott & Crossman 1998; OMNR 2009). Lake sturgeon have four barbels that are close to

the tip of the snout compared to where the mouth is located. These barbels have

mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors that are used to taste and feel their food (Scott &

Crossman 1998). As adults, lake sturgeon are a solid olive-brown to grey color across

the upper portion of the body (Scott & Crossman 1998). The bottom portion is lighter in

color, most often cream to almost white. Lake sturgeon fins are darker in color then the

main colors of the body (Scott & Crossman 1998). While young, lake sturgeon has black

blotches on the body which gradually disappear (Scott & Crossman 1998).

4

Sturgeon are the largest freshwater fish in North America (Scott & Crossman 1998).

White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) indigenous to the Fraser River, British

Columbia, are larger than lake sturgeon (Scott & Crossman 1998) and believed to be the

largest of the sturgeon family in Canada. Lake sturgeon are the only species of sturgeon

that live their entire lifecycle in freshwater ecosystems and is the largest freshwater fish

in Ontario (Scott & Crossman 1998; Peterson et al 2007).

1.1 Life History and Habitat

Age of maturity for lake sturgeon occurs late compared to modern fish species.

Approximately 10-20 years for a male lake sturgeon and 12-22 years for a female lake

sturgeon (Young & Love 1971). Spawning adults reproduce in the spring by releasing

eggs and milt typically as soon as the ice is free from the shoreline in late April and May.

Specific timelines depend on water velocity of the river basin they chose to spawn in

(Scott & Crossman 1998; Bruch & Binkowski 2002). An adult female lake sturgeon

releases on average 100,000 – 500,000 eggs per spawn. It has been estimated that less

than 1% of eggs released, survive to hatch (Nichols et al 2003; Crossman et al 2014).

Individuals reproduce once every 5-7 years (Harkness & Dymond 1961; Love 1972).

Females leave their spawning grounds almost immediately after eggs are released while

males are known to remain and wait for more females to arrive (Peterson et al 2007).

Having a number of males with a single female helps minimize the energy used to find a

mate (Peterson et al 2007). Males seek opportunities to spawn with unattended females.

Lake sturgeon increase their chances of reproducing in ratios of 2-8 males per female.

This increases the genetic diversity in lake sturgeon populations (Bruch & Binkowski

2002). Breeding adults prefer shallow areas with fast running waters, usually at chutes or

waterfalls (Threader et al 1998). Lake sturgeon use clean gravel, rock and cobble as

spawning substrate, which allows eggs to lodge in small crevices and protect them from

predators (Caroffino et al 2010). Breeding adults leave these areas as soon as they have

spawned to return to open water habitual feeding areas for the remainder of the year

(Gerig et al 2010). Sturgeon are opportunistic predators that respond to seasonal

availability of prey species including other fish species (Beamesderfer & Farr 1997).

5

Another feature of habitat requirements is benthic invertebrate composition. These are

the organisms that live in the bottom substrate of water bodies and are a staple food

source for lake sturgeon. Lake sturgeon are accustomed to periods of low food

availability during spawning and can withstand periods of starvation when necessary

(Beamesderfer & Farr 1997). Little data has been collected over the years to determine

suitable lake sturgeon habitat in Lake Nipissing except for lake sturgeon spawning

habitats that have been well documented at the Sturgeon River and the South River.

1.2 Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is often also referred to as Aboriginal

Traditional Knowledge (ATK) and Indigenous Environmental Knowledge (IEK). The

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency identifies TEK as focusing mainly on the

environment and therefore a subclass of ATK (Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency 2016). TEK is specific to each First Nation. The vast geographical territories

occupied by more than 130 separate First Nations in Ontario, generate diverse

experiences and knowledge handed down generation to generation in relation to the land

they inhabit and is always evolving (Berkes et al 2000; Pierotti & Wildcat 2000; Gamlin

2003; MNR 2005; Berkes 2008).

Culturally Indigenous worldview and mainstream Euro-Canadian worldview are opposite

perspectives of how humans live in the world. Many Canadians and newcomers to this

land are unaware of this difference. Culturally Indigenous TEK develops from within a

holistic worldview (Brown 1993). Culturally, Indigenous understanding is that humans

are part of the natural world and that we all have an inherent responsibility within the

living world because we are all connected (Pierotti & Wildcat 2000).

These differences are challenging when TEK and mainstream science (MSS) are required

to interact. A good example of this is documented in the Federal Government’s

Committee on the Endangered Wildlife in Canada call for ATK (COSEWIC 2016). It

read;

6

“The Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee (ATK subcommittee)

is interested in ATK that can help inform the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) with the status assessment of

Lake Sturgeon. More specifically, it is looking for ATK information that is

documented and that is relevant to the COSEWIC assessment criteria (i.e.

small or declining population, small or declining distribution, threats, etc.)

Please also note that in the assessment of species, COSEWIC does not

include information such as cultural or spiritual significance of the

species.”

This paragraph is self-contradictory because; 1) TEK, historically has been purposefully

undocumented, 2) TEK does contain cultural and spiritual information, and 3) TEK does

not fit nicely into the quantitative research criteria favored by MSS. Aboriginal cultural

and spiritual information are found in the stories that are passed on to younger

generations (Berkes et al 2000; Gamlin 2003). Cultural and spiritual information

evolves, and can be applied to our current lives. The importance of bridging perspectives

keeps knowledge systems such as TEK alive (Gamlin 2003). TEK is acquired through

traditional teachings, and empirical observations. Oral traditions are shared through

personal relationship in common environments and in a spirit of reciprocity. Non-

coercion and non-interference are basic behaviours practiced within culturally Indigenous

worldview. Although experience and observations (facts) are shared among many, the

interpretation of those facts remains up to each individual. Culturally indigenous

societies do not seek only one interpretation of facts or one truth (Castellano 2000;

Gamlin 2003). Recent changes to the COSEWIC ATK subcommittee website now

acknowledge that spiritual, cultural and historical knowledge is significant and improves

the process to assess a species that may be at risk (Secretariat COSEWIC 2017).

In 2010, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) drafted 14 recommendations (summarized

in Appendix A) for COSEWIC to improve understanding and appropriate interaction

when approaching Indigenous communities and TEK experts (AFN 2010). These

recommendations can be found online at the AFN website. The document is called ‘An

Analysis of the Species at Risk Act Policies on the Conservation Cycle’ and is echoed in

7

‘Collaborative Consent: A Nation-to-Nation Path to Partnership with Indigenous

Government’ of the Northwest Territories, Ministry of Natural Resources (Fontaine et al

2015).

1.3 Fisheries Management

To fully understand lake sturgeon management on Lake Nipissing, data was compiled

from a wide variety of sources. The information provided here encompasses commercial

fisheries, habitat destruction, industry/pollution, value of lake sturgeon caviar and meat,

destruction of spawning habitat, hatcheries, the relationship between provincial and

federal governments and First Nation (FN) constitution and Treaties, species at risk

categorization, enforcement/compliance, restorative efforts for lake sturgeon populations

in other lakes, current and proposed management and recovery strategies, scientific field

study projects and data analyses.

Lake Sturgeon were a targeted commercial species by non-Indigenous fishermen in Lake

Nipissing before the turn of the 20th

century. A record 132 kg (292 lb.) sturgeon caught

in 1885 provides perspective when comparing the average size of 16 kg (35 lb.) sturgeon

found today in Lake Nipissing. Before 1950, lake sturgeon were commonly caught at

over 45 kg (99 lbs.) during the commercial fishery in Lake Nipissing (LeBelle 1995).

The biggest individual lake sturgeon recorded during the commercial fishery weighed in

at 89 kg (196 lb.) (LeBelle 1995). The biggest lake sturgeon caught during the adult

sturgeon assessments was an 82 kg (181 lb.) female caught at the South River in 2004

(approx. 50 years old). In 1975 Art Taillon and Guy Courchesne of the Lake Nipissing

Fishing Company caught the 85.3 kg (188 lb.) lake sturgeon featured in Figure 2.

8

Figure 2: Bountiful harvest for Art Taillon (left) and Guy Courchesne of the

Lake Nipissing Fishing Company 1975 (Reprinted with the permission of the West

Nipissing Public Library [Musée Sturgeon River House Museum 1975]).

Non-Indigenous commercial fisheries strongly contributed to the decimation of Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon. The two primary commercial fisheries all but eradicated the

once plentiful Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon population over a period of approximately

100 years.

New technologies were sought to improve profits as harvests of lake sturgeon dropped in

the early 1900’s. During this period, two German citizens were invited to Sturgeon Falls

to teach local fishermen how to use pound-nets in 1914 and as early as 1915 pound-nets

were used by Roy Cockburn and two of his brothers to harvest lake sturgeon. Local

newspapers give rise to questions of non-compliance by the Cockburn brothers of

Sturgeon Falls during the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon fishery closure of 1908-1917.

By 1946, Roy Cockburn known affectionately around the town as “The King of Caviar,”

had become the sole proprietor of the family commercial fishing business as well as the

elected mayor of the town of Sturgeon Falls (McLeod 1946). At this time his brother

George Cockburn was the acting Indian agent of Nipissing district. The brothers’

association allowed the Cockburn’s free reign to pursue control of whatever natural

resources they chose including the cranberry marsh at the mouth of the Sturgeon River

(McLeod 1946). Local Indigenous peoples gathered cranberries for traditional use and

sold them for profit before the Cockburn brother’s took control (Logan 1857, McLeod

1946).

9

Management of lake sturgeon has changed over the years. There were efforts to protect

spawning lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing during the early 1900’s. Interviews were

completed in 1960 from local residents to find out where lake sturgeon spawned. In

1961-1963 lake sturgeon assessments in partnerships with commercial fisheries were

attempted. The joint purpose of these assessments was to estimate the population of lake

sturgeon in the main body of Lake Nipissing and record movement patterns so that lake

sturgeon habitat could be identified. Then years later in 1970-71, lake sturgeon

assessments were again undertaken with the cooperation of local commercial fishermen.

Age samples, lengths, and weights were collected and recorded. Although the

commercial fishery had collapsed by 1972 it remained open for another nineteen years

(Jorgensen 1976). The commercial fishery did not officially close until 1991, the same

year lake sturgeon recovery efforts began.

Recreational fisheries management goals today have changed from attempting to

minimize the effects of exploitation to efforts of protection. Specific to Lake Nipissing,

the angling season/sport fishery was closed on June 30, 1991, at the same time as the

commercial fishery (MNR 1991; Seyler 2001). Angling regulations for Ontario lake

sturgeon still existed until July 1, 2008 (OMNR 2009). Open season for Zone 11 (part of

the Lake Nipissing watershed) began January 1 to April 30, closed during May and June,

then reopened July 1 to December 31 (OMNR 2009) with no size limits and catch limit of

one for the sport fishery.

The Fisheries Assessment Unit (part of the MNR) completed sturgeon tagging projects

from 1991 - 1995 at Sturgeon and South Rivers. Between the years 2001 - 2006 the

MNR and the Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (AOFRC) in sporadic

partnership with Nipissing First Nation (NFN) continued to gather adult lake sturgeon

data. In 2008, 2011-2012 NFN continued adult lake sturgeon assessments at the

Sturgeon River. Dokis First Nation (DFN) and the AOFRC also collected data from the

area below the French River dam in 2012. Long-term data collected over the years has

provided important insight regarding the fate of the once plentiful Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon, but no standardized methods to collect scientific data from lake sturgeon in

Lake Nipissing have been followed over the years. All methods that have been found are

10

included in appendices. This information can be used as a departure point from which to

develop a fisheries management strategy.

1.4 Purpose

The goal of this Major Research Paper (MRP) is to compile secondary lake sturgeon data

and related existing information within the Lake Nipissing watershed and to analyze the

data in order to determine the current status of the lake sturgeon population in Lake

Nipissing. To accomplish this, their life history, and past/present threats to their

population are considered. These analyses will help determine recommendations for this

‘threatened’ species and work towards a local scale management strategy. Each chapter

has been structured to reflect three major resource categories contained within; 1) First

Nation knowledge, rights and responsibilities in relation to Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon,

2) secondary written/photographic documentation and 3) secondary Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon fisheries (scientific) data obtained through field studies for the Nipissing

watershed region. The analyses within this MRP are intended for public access, available

to all parties living within the Lake Nipissing watershed including First Nations (FNs),

non-Indigenous populations, scientists, environmental stakeholders etc. This information

will help us all to determine local scale management strategies directed toward lake

sturgeon recovery. However, the data used to conduct these analyses are subject to

specific permission obtained from the respective organizations.

The experiences First Nations’ people have historically had in regards to Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon differ from non-Indigenous residents in the Nipissing region. To shed light

on this difference, several FN-generated resources relating to FN experience are provided

in this MRP. Conflict between FN and non-Indigenous local populations regarding Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon (and other species in the region) are acknowledged. Stresses

within FN communities regarding the interpretation and exercise of treaty rights in regard

to fisheries and species at risk are also identified. The inclusion of this information is

critically informative toward developing a unified management strategy to protect Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon for all communities involved, both mainstream and Indigenous

together.

11

Chapter 2

2. METHODOLOGY

Historic-to-present day secondary data and information that currently exists has been

gathered for lake sturgeon of the Lake Nipissing watershed. Information includes First

Nation knowledge, rights and responsibilities regarding Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

from a culturally Indigenous perspective and is supported by secondary information

found in written/photographic documentation including personal journals, publications,

newspaper articles as well as scientific data collected through field studies.

MNR:

Electronic

District observations and records (1991).

MNR-led netting assessments (1991-1995 and 2001-2008).

Paper Records

History records of the Commercial Sturgeon Fishery in Lake Nipissing (1888-

1991).

The Lake Sturgeon of Lake Nipissing Report (1971).

The Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) of Lake Nipissing (1972).

Lake Nipissing Sturgeon Project summaries (1991-1995).

Lake Nipissing Sturgeon Project (1991).

Minutes - Sturgeon Recovery Project Meeting (1992)

Save the Sturgeon / Sauves L’Esturgeon (1992).

Sturgeon Recovery Program Meeting (1993).

Lake Sturgeon Recovery Program summary (1993).

Larval Netting (1995).

Developing Recovery Indices for Lake Sturgeon in Lake Nipissing (2007).

Sturgeon Netting Assessment – South River (2001-2005 and 2008-2009).

Sturgeon Netting Assessment – Sturgeon River (2006).

12

Throughout the projects listed, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), now known as

the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) worked in partnership with

Nipissing First Nation (NFN) and the Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre

(A/OFRC) [a non-profit organization that was established in 1995 to help First Nations

conduct fisheries assessments while “promoting the value of both western science and

traditional ecological knowledge” (AOFRC 2016)] in North Bay. NFN began collecting

data in 2008 with support from the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk (AFSAR) to

assist efforts in monitoring lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing. Dokis First Nation (DFN)

produced research in association with the AOFRC in 2001 and with support from the

AFSAR in 2012.

A/OFRC:

Electronic

Sturgeon Netting Assessments with NFN (2001-2002 and 2003).

French River Lake Sturgeon Spawning Survey with DFN (2012).

Paper Records

Sturgeon River Lake Sturgeon Spawning Assessment with NFN (2003).

Nipissing First Nation South River Larval Lake Sturgeon Drift Assessment

(2015).

Nipissing First Nation:

Electronic

Adult sturgeon mark-recapture assessments (2011-2012).

Adopt-a-Sturgeon project in partnership with the Greater Nipissing Stewardship

Council (2012).

Juvenile sturgeon mark-recapture assessments (2008 -2012).

Nipissing Gichi-Naaknigewin (Constitution) (2014).

Nipissing First Nation Fisheries Law (2015).

13

Paper Records

Lake Sturgeon Assessment: Lake Nipissing (2001).

Communications with Natural Resources Department (McLeod-Shabogesic).

Sturgeon Netting Assessments (2008).

Progress Report: Population and Habitat Status for Lake Sturgeon in Lake

Nipissing (2009).

Lake Sturgeon TEK survey (2010).

Sturgeon Fishing Elders WAV (2012) transcribed by Nicole Latulippe (2014).

Dokis First Nation:

Electronic

2001 Lake Sturgeon Interviews.

Lake Sturgeon Habitat Protection Policy (2013).

AFSAR (Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk) Report (2012).

2.1 Data Analysis

Available quantitative fisheries data compiled for this MRP has been organized into three

distinct time periods (no lake sturgeon projects were completed between 1996 and 2000).

The majority of the data collected in the three time periods are; 1) 1991-1995 –

immediately after the commercial fisheries closed, 2) 2001-2005 – ten years post closure

of the commercial fisheries, and 3) 2006-2012 – 15+ years post closure of the

commercial fisheries.

A timeline developed from these three time periods helps to provide analysis of the

current status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Total length (TL), fork length (FL), and

weight (W) were collected throughout the three time periods during mark-recapture

assessments and sex determined. Age structures (from pectoral fin ray) were also

collected from some years starting in 2001. Age data can determine population growth

rates, gender, age-at-first-spawn and spawning intervals (Roussow 1957). The number of

lake sturgeon captured and tagged are also important when reviewing data collected over

14

many years to determine abundance or for estimating populations. A population estimate

could not previously be attempted for the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon until enough lake

sturgeon were tagged using reliable technology which was achieved by 2009 at the South

River and 2012 at the Sturgeon River.

MNR, A/OFRC, NFN and DFN fisheries data was either entered or imported into an

excel spreadsheet then separated by location and year collected. This data was assessed

for inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Data integrity is essential in determining a species

population and health. Acquiring data previously collected by others over the years is

difficult. In many cases hard copies of data entered into a database are no longer

available. It is also not possible to ensure that previously collected data is correct without

field data sheets, an important detail for data analysis.

Sex data were combined since few females were identified each year after 1991.

The length-weight linear equation used to determine growth rates;

log10W = a + b log10L

Where W = weight, L = length, a and b are constants.

Length-at-age was calculated using mean total lengths and age of lake sturgeon. Length-

at-age was calculated using FAMS 1.64.4 software (Slipke & Maceina 2014).

Lt = L∞(1 – e -K(t-t0))

Where Lt = length at time, L∞ = asymptotic length, K = growth coefficient, t0 = time

coefficient (Isely and Grabowski 2007).

Age samples were not taken when the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon assessments first

began in 1991. Age samples were collected by the MNR between 2001-2003. In 2006,

the MNR resumed taking age samples at the Sturgeon River only because they had very

little age data from that location. Between 2008-2011 age samples were also collected

from juveniles caught incidentally in nets from the NFN commercial fisheries. In 2011,

age samples were also collected from adult lake sturgeon by NFN.

15

Population estimates were calculated using the adjusted Petersen Method (Ricker 1975)

along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different areas of Lake Nipissing; the adult

population at the South River, the adult population at the Sturgeon River and the juvenile

population in the main body of the Lake.

N = (𝑀+1)(𝐶+1)

(𝑅+1) (95% CI for the mean population is: 𝑥 ± 𝑧

𝑠

√𝑛)

Where M = number of fish marked, C = catch or sample taken for census, R = number of

recaptured marks in the sample, and N = size of population (Ricker 1975).

There were four different population estimates attempted for Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon, two for the South River and one for the Sturgeon River. The fourth population

estimate was calculated for the juvenile lake sturgeon in the main portion of Lake

Nipissing. For these population estimates, three years of data was used for the marking

events and two years for the recapture events. At the South River, adult lake sturgeon

tagged for the first time between 2002 - 2005 (four years) were used for the marking

event and counted only once based on their unique tag number. Lake sturgeon recaptured

during the marked event were not counted as recaptures for this calculation. All lake

sturgeon was then counted in 2008 and 2009 from the South River whether they were

marked or not for a total catch. Lake sturgeon recaptured from the South River in

2008/2009 were totaled and used as the recapture event. Recaptured fish were sorted by

PIT tag number or tag number, and then by year, to ensure fish were only counted once

when recaptured. Recaptured numbers in the recaptured event were also used to calculate

the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals. All steps were repeated for the adult lake

sturgeon at the Sturgeon River. Only three years were used for the marking event at the

Sturgeon River. The marking event for the Sturgeon River population was 2006 - 2008;

lake sturgeon recaptured from the Sturgeon River in 2011/2012 were totaled and used as

the recapture event. The marking event for the juvenile population from the main body

of the lake was 2008 - 2010; juvenile lake sturgeon recaptured in 2011/2012 were totaled

and used as the recapture event.

16

Catch per Unit Effort (CUE) is used to determine overall abundance of fish caught and

trends over the years.

C/f = N

Where C = number of fish caught, f = the number of efforts, and N = abundance or

fishing effort (Hubert and Fabrizo 2007).

Access to Nipissing First Nation and Dokis First Nation data will only be available by

requesting permission directly from these two First Nations.

17

Chapter 3

3. RESULTS and FINDINGS

3.1 First Nation Knowledge, Rights and Responsibilities

As a Masters’ of Environmental Science candidate, direct descendant of the original

Indigenous inhabitants of the territory from which Nipissing University derives its name

and biologist at Nipissing First Nation Natural Resources Department, I am aware of the

exclusion of TEK by mainstream science. This MRP has been presented in a

comprehensive format accessible to all peoples interested in Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

(not only to mainstream worldview). The ‘threatened’ status of Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon (and other species, past and present) demands transparency. This MRP reflects

Indigenous determination toward the decolonization of all aspects of life. Culturally

Indigenous people believe all living beings on Earth deserve respect (Pierotti & Wildcat

2000).

3.1.1 Robinson-Huron Treaty

Treaty agreements between sovereign Nations represent both law and contract. Chiefs

also signed treaties (Nation-to-Nation) with the British Crown and believed these

agreements sacred and to be respected (UOI 2016). The Robinson-Huron Treaty

(Appendix B) affecting Peoples living within the Lake Nipissing watershed assured

Indigenous members of Dokis, Nipissing, Henvey Inlet and Bear Island First Nation that

they would continue to enjoy;

“…full and free privilege to hunt over the territory now ceded by them and

to fish in the waters thereof as they have heretofore been in the habitat of

doing…” (Robinson-Huron Treaty 1850; Duhamel 1964).

The Robinson-Huron Treaty was written in the English language only without Ojibwe

translation. First Nations in this region spoke Ojibwe as a first language. Existing within

oral tradition, many did not yet read or write the English language as they had no need to

18

do so. This created a barrier of access to the content and meaning of treaties for FNs and

a forced reliance on Crown representatives, the majority of who exhibited significant

conflicts of interests in the administration of their duties.

A difficult and demeaning history with Crown representatives (Indian agents and the

Ministry of Natural Resources) reveal that FN fishers were commonly charged and/or

fined for harvesting lake sturgeon even though Crown law guaranteed FN members

“…right to hunt and fish anywhere within the Robinson-Huron treaty territory”

(Robinson-Huron Treaty 1850; Duhamel 1964 ). Use of lake sturgeon for medicinal or

ceremonial use is also protected as an Indigenous right as mentioned by a DFO employee

when consulting Nipissing First Nation in 2012 (NFN 2012). Officers of the Crown have

an undocumented history (Indigenous perspective) of not representing the best interests

of FN people, protecting their resources or defending their rights (DFN 2012; NFN

2012).

Elders of both Dokis and Nipissing remember experiences of their people being robbed,

arrested, fined and/or having their boat, equipment and lake sturgeon harvests seized by

Crown authorities. In the past, MNR officials could not be trusted and were avoided

whenever possible (DFN 2012; NFN 2012). Today, the MNR freely acknowledges that

historic practices and policies of both provincial and federal governments caused ongoing

disenfranchisement and displacement of Indigenous people from their traditional cultural

practices and lands (MNR 2005). It was not until the inclusion of Section 35 in the

Canadian Constitution (1982) recognizing and affirming Aboriginal and treaty rights that

circumstances slowly began to change and improve (Constitution Act 1982; MNR 2005).

Few Canadians understand that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people assumes

rights and responsibilities in relation to the treaties ratified by their ancestors. This

continues to be a barrier of understanding for non-Indigenous peoples in respect to

harvest practices of Indigenous peoples and contributes to on-going social conflicts.

3.1.2 Indigenous Worldview - Traditional Ecological Knowledge

A culturally Indigenous worldview was prevalent within FN populations of the Lake

Nipissing watershed region at the time of signing the Robinson-Huron Treaty in 1850

19

(Appendix B). Today however, many Indigenous people live and work from within a

more mainstream Euro-Canadian worldview. This is due to the forced attendance of their

ancestors into Canada’s residential school system (1840’s-1996) and the experience of

multi-generational trauma this legacy continued to exert (Battiste 2013). It should be

stressed that the vast majority of Indigenous peoples did not willingly assimilate into

mainstream worldview but did so gradually after centuries of pressure by the Federal

Government of Canada to either assimilate or eradicate Canada’s Indigenous populations

(Rheault 2011). As Duncan Scott, Deputy Superintendent-General for Indian affairs

(1920) clearly states while addressing the Canadian House of Commons;

“…our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that

has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question,

and no Indian Department; that is the whole object” (Scott 1920 in Ponting

1997; Rheault 2011).

Much TEK has been lost over the past century as a direct result of residential schools.

Article 11 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(UNDRIP 2016) highlights:

“States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may

include restitution, developed in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, with

respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken

without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws,

traditions and customs” (UNDRIP 2016).

3.1.3 Dokis First Nation (DFN) Elder Interviews

With support from Aboriginal Funding for Species at Risk (AFSAR), technicians and

members of DFN completed personal interviews with 19 Dokis First Nation Elders

regarding their knowledge and history of lake sturgeon (2001) in their home territory on

the French River (connecting Lake Nipissing to the Great Lakes). Those interviewed

remember their childhood environment far healthier and bountiful than it has become in

the twenty-first century. Elders’ acknowledge lake sturgeon as having been a food source

20

for their people since time immemorial. The appearance of yellow butterflies between

mid-May to mid-June (spawning season) meant it was time to begin fishing for lake

sturgeon. Popular methods of harvest included spearing from shore and nets

(approximately 30’ long) using rocks for sinkers and cedar floats. Night lines were also

set. Elders recalled catches of lake sturgeon between 78-115 pounds and up to six foot

long. Lake sturgeon were traditionally distributed to extended family/community and

rarely preserved as their abundance was great (DFN 2012).

Approached by Coburn fishers to sell a large lake sturgeon caught earlier in the day a

Dokis First Nation Elder replied;

“We don’t make a living out of selling fish… if you treat your land right, it

will treat you good” (DFN 2001).

Pollution and developments on the French River also played a significant role in

disturbing lake sturgeon habitat. An Elder who witnessed the dynamiting of Chaudière

Falls (spawning habitat) recalls it having been the worst thing he ever saw in his life.

Others recall seeing hundreds of fish trapped in pools and ponds resulting from the

alterations by dams controlled by Public Works and Government Services Canada (DFN

2012).

3.1.4 Nipissing First Nation (NFN)

The Nipissing people are historically referred to by many different names in several

different languages. It is generally agreed that the word Nipissing refer to the “people of

the little water”, (Lake Nipissing) in comparison to the larger waters of Lake Huron and

Georgian Bay (Kennedy 1961; Leatherdale 2008). Lake sturgeon are known as Nm’e in

the Ojibwe language of the Nipissing (NFN 2010).

With support from AFSAR, Nipissing First Nation also did personal interviews in 2010;

Elders from Garden Village (Northshore of Lake Nipissing) participated in a short survey

developed by Nipissing First Nation Fisheries (now known as the Nipissing First Nation

Natural Resources Department) in an attempt to collect traditional knowledge of lake

21

sturgeon. Garden Village Elders informed us that they also used to wait for the arrival of

yellow butterflies in spring to signal the beginning of lake sturgeon spawn. When deer

shed their winter coats and turned reddish in color was another known environmental

indicator. Lake sturgeon could be seen jumping along the north shore of Lake Nipissing

including right in front of Garden Village homes on route to their spawning site at the

base of Sturgeon Falls. Juveniles could also be seen jumping above surface water as they

followed the adults. The sound of loud splashing accompanied this behavior. Jumpers

ranged from 50 to 200 pounds. Some commonly floated in the short grass near shore.

Lake sturgeon were believed to spawn at the same time as bass and shiners. Jumping

sturgeon are no longer witnessed by Garden Village residents and have not been seen

jumping for more than 50 years.

Long ago (early 1900’s) residents from NFN were known to set snares along the

shoreline. More recently (before 1990’s) spears and set nets were commonly used to

harvest lake sturgeon during spring and summer months although lake sturgeon were

traditionally caught in all four seasons if needed. Juvenile and adult lake sturgeon were

caught throughout the entire lake from depths of four feet to 80 feet (French River area)

during the 1960’s. Nipissing people boiled, fried, baked, smoked, barbequed lake

sturgeon and ate the caviar. Medicinally, women were encouraged to consume sturgeon

oil (a fatty fish rich in Omega 3’s) during the third trimester of pregnancy to help support

optimum brain development (McLeod-Shabogesic). Of the seven Elders who

participated, all acknowledged being or having been subsistence fishers only. Sturgeon

were no longer targeted but caught incidentally when tangled in nets set for other fish

species. One fisher recalled a sturgeon in 1986 weighting in at 137 pounds (62 kg).

Nipissing First Nation Elders were surprised to hear that the DFO doesn’t usually realize

the danger species are in until it’s too late (NFN 2012). Nipissing First Nation Elders

believe that the lake sturgeon decline was due to overfishing by past non-Indigenous

commercial fishermen including their use of pound-nets with capacities to hold hundreds

of sturgeon, many over 100 pounds (45 kg). As youngsters, NFN Elders would watch for

the Cockburn commercial fishers to pass by their shoreline homes in Garden Village.

When the big boats were spotted, neighbors would walk down to the Cockburn docks

22

(located adjacent to the reserve) with their buckets and wait for the head/entrails of lake

sturgeon to be handed out. Once boiled, a delicious soup was enjoyed (NFN 2010). NFN

Elders also identified pollution as a contributing factor to sturgeon decline.

Figure 3: Benjamin Goulais (left) and Roy Cockburn (right), circa [1946-1951]

(Reprinted with the permission of Gary Goulais).

The NFN Gichi-Naaknigewin (Constitution – What governs us) reflects the values and

principles of Nipissing heritage and was signed into law on behalf of the Nipissing First

Nation debendaagziwaad (membership) in 2014, making it the first FN constitution

ratified within the Union of Ontario Indians territory (NFN 2014). The Gichi-

Naaknigewin acknowledges that Chief and Council are fully accountable to NFN

membership in regard to the harvest of natural resources (including lake sturgeon and

other fish species) in a sustainable manner and that in the event of conflict between NFN

laws and regulations the Gichi-Naaknigewin will prevail as the highest authority (NFN

2014).

Chief and Council also has the exclusive jurisdiction to create new laws to further protect

the natural resources of their territory when needed in accordance with traditional core

values outlined in the Gichi-Naaknigewin, including traditional and cultural values to

sustain/maintain wellness of air, water, wildlife, forest, fish, lands and “heritage for

future generations” (NFN 2014). Nipissing FN members and “all others entering the

23

traditional territory” of the Nipissing are obligated to adhere to the laws established

through Nipissing Gichi-Naaknigewin (NFN 2014). Although no formal NFN or DFN

subsistence fisheries laws exist, informal agreements have been acknowledged by

Indigenous subsistence and commercial fishers to respect the MNR’s quota for lake

sturgeon at zero (NFN 2015). First Nations subsistence fishers comply through

recognition of the population decimation suffered by Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon over

the past century. Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon are not a targeted species by FN

subsistence or commercial fishers.

3.2 Publications/Newspapers/Illustrations/Photographs

Before European contact lake sturgeon were an important food source for Indigenous

people living around the Great Lakes (Holzkamm & Waisberg 2004). Historically the

Nipissing’s utilized a large geographic territory stretching from Sault St. Marie, to Lake

Temagami, Lake Timiskaming, and Algonquin Park and throughout the District of Parry

Sound. The Nipissing commonly travelled the Ottawa River from Montreal in the east

along the Mattawa River to Lake Nipissing and further down the French River to

Georgian Bay of Lake Huron (Leatherdale 2008). Although lake sturgeon was not the

main source of food, lake sturgeon were the most abundant species of fish and were

available the entire year for subsistence (Kohl 1860). Very little documented information

was found on Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon before the commercial fisheries began. What

historical information could be found describes how abundant fish were in general in

Lake Nipissing. One sentence documented that a piece of lake sturgeon was traded for a

clasp-knife, sometime between the years 1631-1634 (Leatherdale 2008).

3.2.1 Commercial Fisheries and First Management Efforts

From European contact until the 1860’s commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes

harvested enormous quantities of lake sturgeon flesh for meat and lake sturgeon eggs for

caviar. Having seriously diminished populations of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes,

commercial fisheries targeted smaller inland lakes such as Lake Nipissing, Lake Nipigon

and Lake of the Woods (Ferguson & Duckworth 1997). While extensive Indigenous oral

24

accounts are offered, there are no written records pre-dating 1860 to scientifically

confirm the effect commercial harvesting has had on current lake sturgeon populations

(Ferguson & Duckworth 1997).

The West Nipissing Library provided a wealth of information related to Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon. Only two commercial fisheries operated on Lake Nipissing to harvest lake

sturgeon. The Lake Nipissing Fishing Company (A. Taillon Fishery) and Cockburn

Limited [later owned and operated as the Paul Benoit Fishery (Love 1972)]. The

Cockburn (also spelled Coburn) family (Scottish immigrants) of Sturgeon Falls were well

known commercial fishers of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon and were actively exporting

lake sturgeon caviar to destinations abroad, including to the Emperor of Germany,

William (Wilhelm) II (Casey 1967; West Nipissing Public Library Collection n.d.).

Although lake sturgeon populations had seriously diminished by 1946, settler descendent

Roy Cockburn, owner of Cockburn’s Limited (commercial fishery) and then Mayor of

Sturgeon Falls, acknowledged harvesting an estimated 318 kg – 454 kg (700 – 1000

pounds) of caviar annually (McLeod 1946). A single female lake sturgeon provides an

average of 60 pounds (27 kg) of eggs for caviar. A letter from the Lieutenant Governor

(Queen’s Park, Toronto) to Roy Cockburn in September, 1951 (found at the West

Nipissing Library 2015) informs us;

“A very welcome parcel has been received from you, but we will not open it

until Their Royal Highnesses, The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of

Edinburgh arrive.

You of course know just how much we appreciate your splendid Caviar and

this will be a great treat for our Royal visitors.”

25

Figure 4: Mr. Roy Cockburn holding a lake sturgeon on the left 1951 and Roy

Cockburn (a.k.a. Caviar King) on the right in 1946 holding lake sturgeon caviar

(Reprinted with the permission of the West Nipissing Public Library [Musée

Sturgeon River House Museum 1951 & 1946]).

While Indigenous inhabitants of the Lake Nipissing region were being persecuted/fined

for subsistence fishing of lake sturgeon to support their families (DFN 2001), Mayor

Cockburn publicly bragged about ‘Nipissing’s Black Gold’ or lake sturgeon caviar,

netting profits of $4.00-$5.00 per pound (McLeod 1946; National Film Board 1951). No

numbers were recorded for caviar harvests between 1924 - 1959, and then only

sporadically recorded from 1960 - 1990. For Cockburn, the sale of lake sturgeon caviar

proved to be four times as profitable as income earned through the sale of lake sturgeon

meat. To provide readers perspective of economics in the 1940’s, the treaty payment

received by individual FN members from the Crown were and remain to this day $4.00

for the entire year (UOI 2016). The average non-Indigenous post-war income for a male

worker in Canada was approximately $1.00 per hour (Department of Labour 1949).

According to Madame J. E. Cousineau, in ‘Remember Sturgeon Falls Yesterday’ a record

catch of a 132 kg (292 pound) lake sturgeon was recorded at Sturgeon in 1885 (Casey

1967). Though commercial catches for lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing were

documented as early as 1885, the commercial catch of lake sturgeon wasn’t accurately

recorded until 1900 (Love & Young 1971). Records of reported commercial harvest of

26

lake sturgeon and caviar in pounds (converted to kilograms) are displayed in the

following graph to show trends over the years (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Reported commercial harvest, Lake Nipissing (data provided by the

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014). Carsten Jorgensen, a Biologist from the Lake

Nipissing Fisheries Unit, summarizes some historic information on the commercial

fishery of Lake Nipissing into 6 time periods, they include; 1) highest production

(1900-1907), 2) production decline (1918-1929), 3) harvest fluctuation (1930-1949),

4) irregular fluctuation and some recovery (1950-1965), 5) production on steady

decline (1966-1972), 6) collapse of commercial fishery (after 1972).

During the 8-year interval between 1900 - 1907 the commercial fishery still used gill nets

to harvest. The total recorded harvest of lake sturgeon was 519,485 kg (including 40,523

kg of caviar). This represents an average harvest of 64,936 kg/year (5,065 kg/year of

caviar). During the 67-years interval between 1924 - 1990 the commercial fishery had

replaced gill nets with pound-nets. The total recorded harvest of lake sturgeon was

248,652 kg (including 4,481 kg of caviar). This represents an average harvest of 3,711

kg/year (67 kg/year of caviar). Over the 4-year interval of 1924 - 1927 recorded harvests

declined approximately 50% from 19,153 kg to 10,533 kg (Figure 5). After 1929,

recorded harvests never again reached 10,000 kg (Figure 6). By 1990 the recorded

27

number of lake sturgeon harvested was 382 kg (including 49 kg of caviar) (Jorgensen

1976; MNR 2014).

Between the years of 1900-1990, management efforts did take place during the

commercial sturgeon fisheries in Lake Nipissing. As early as 1903, a May/June closure

was enforced (Order of Council) to protect spawning lake sturgeon. Between 1908 –

1917 a total closure of the commercial fisheries was enforced. During this closure,

commercial fishermen learned to set commercial pound-nets to replace gill nets (Young

& Love 1971). When the commercial fisheries re-opened in 1918, the annual recorded

harvest was 44,682 kg. The annual recorded harvest declined to 27,131 kg by 1921. No

records exist for the years 1922 and 1923. In 1927, the May/June closure was reduced to

June only then later revoked in 1954. Years leading up to 1954 show annual recorded

harvests below 5,000 kg, except for 1945 when the total harvest was recorded at 6,340

kg. The harvest of lake sturgeon experienced steady decline between 1966-1972. By

1972, the commercial sturgeon fishery was considered collapsed with a total harvest of

1,003 kg (Jorgensen 1976). In 1976, a quota of lake sturgeon set at 1,814 kg was not

reached. The annual recorded harvest in 1976 was 300 kg. By 1980 the lake sturgeon

quota reduced to 907 kg that was also not met. The recorded annual harvest for 1980 was

687 kg. The last 10 years of the commercial fisheries (1981-1990) recorded a total Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon harvest of 7,180 kg. By comparison, harvests recorded during

the last ten years of the commercial fisheries represent approximately 1% of lake

sturgeon harvest volumes between 1900-1907 when records first began to be accurately

recorded. The highest recorded harvest of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was in 1903 at

86,750 kg compared to the final recorded harvest of 382 kg in 1990.

A similar graph below provides more information of the sturgeon commercial fishery

harvests in Lake Nipissing after 1929 (Figure 6). Recorded numbers did not reach

10,000 kg after 1929. Management actions were included in Figures 5 and 6 to show

efforts to protect the declining population in Lake Nipissing. Despite the implementation

of a 1,814 kg (4,000 lbs.) quota in 1974, and further reduction to 907 kg (2,000 lbs.) in

1980, these modest quotas were never met. The fishery was finally closed in 1991 (MNR

data; Seyler 2001).

28

Figure 6: Reported lake sturgeon harvest from 1929-1991 (data provided by

Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014), Lake Nipissing Commercial Fishery.

Highlights include; revocation of June commercial fisheries closure (1927-1954),

1,814 kg quota set in 1974, quota reduced in 1980 to 907 kg, June closure re-

established in 1981, final closure 1991.

Prior to 1908, gillnets were used for the commercial sturgeon fishery in Lake Nipissing

(Young & Love 1971). In 1914, Mr. Adam Reid and Mr. Leonard White were invited to

Sturgeon Falls (Lake Nipissing) from Germany to teach local non-Indigenous

commercial fishermen how to set pound-nets (Young & Love 1971). Local newspaper

articles document the first pound-nets being set for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon as early

as 1914 during the closure of the commercial fisheries (McLeod 1946; Musée Sturgeon

river House Museum 1947).

Local public information also offers insight into lake sturgeon abundance. An interview

with Mr. Coventry of Sturgeon Falls in 1960, said he was concerned about the sturgeon

numbers in Lake Nipissing compared to numbers in 1945 (Young & Love 1971).

Although the pound-net fishery officially did not open until 1918, the first pound-nets

were being set for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon as early as 1914 (Young & Love 1971).

29

Figure 7: Pound-net being set off of the Garden Village shoreline by non-

Indigenous commercial fishermen in 1947 left and lake sturgeon harvested on the

right (Reprinted with the permission of the West Nipissing Public Library

Collection [Musée Sturgeon River House Museum 1947]).

Commercial pound-nets seen in Figures 7, limited the natural movement of Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon (Figure 8). Past movement patterns of lake sturgeon can be seen

in Figure 16. Four pound-nets were being set between the Hardwood Islands and Dokis

Point (Northshore of Lake Nipissing) to the Northshore of Sandy Island before the 1970’s

(Young & Love 1971). In 1970 five pound-nets were set between Dokis Point and Jocko

Point (Northshore of Lake Nipissing) with an additional three pound-nets in the area of

the Goose Islands to the Sandy Island (Young & Love 1971) (Figure 8). It is unclear as

to where pound-nets were set after 1970.

30

Figure 8: Areas where pound-nets were set in Lake Nipissing prior to 1970 and

during 1970 (modified from Young & Love 1971; Natural Resources Canada 2016).

Attempts to recover the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon population began in 1991 when the

commercial fishery closed. On June 30, 1991 the angling season for sturgeon in Lake

Nipissing was also closed in efforts to help the population recover (MNR 1991).

Efforts of fisheries management to understand the lake sturgeon population in Lake

Nipissing began while the commercial fishery was still in full operation. Surprisingly

little data had been compiled (pre-1970’s) on Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon given their

great value to the commercial fisheries industry in the past (Young & Love 1971).

Length-frequency distribution data was collected from commercial pound-nets in 1970-

1971 (Figure 9). The mean total length for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in 1970 was

1323 mm 196.2 (S.D) with a range of 1041 mm – 1676 mm (n=32) (Figure 9, A). The

mean total length for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in 1971 was 1367 mm 180.2 (S.D)

with a range of 1016 mm – 1930 mm (n=132) (Figure 9, B).

31

Figure 9: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from Lake Nipissing caught

in commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexed combined, mean total length for lake

sturgeon at 1323 mm, B) 1971 data, sexed combined, mean total length for lake

sturgeon at 1367 mm.

The length-weight relationship (main body of the lake) in 1970 was y = 3.11x – 8.84,

R2=0.81 (n=32), with a mean weight of 17.4 kg, sexes combined (Figure 10, A). The

length-weight relationship (main body of the lake) in 1971 was y = 3.32x – 9.22, R2=0.85

(n=116), with a mean weight of 16.8 kg, sexes combined (Figure 10, B). Length-weight

data are logarithmically (base 10) transformed to fit in linear form.

Figure 10: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from Lake

Nipissing caught in commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexes combined

(R2=0.8185), mean weight at 17.4 kg, B) 1971 data, sexes combined (R

2=0.8542),

mean weight at 16.8 kg.

32

During the last year of commercial fishing, fishermen again agreed to participate in the

tagging of lake sturgeon caught in commercial pound-nets. A total of 24 lake sturgeon

were captured, measured and tagged between May - November (MNR 1991). In 1991,

MNR director Art Currie remarked that none of the fish were recaptures (Mosseler 1991).

The length-weight relationship (main body of the lake) in 1991 was y = 3.82x – 10.78,

R2=0.91) (n=22), with a mean weight of 19.2 kg, sexes combined (Figure 11). Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon were heavier at a given length in 1991 when compared to 1970-

71 (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from Lake

Nipissing caught in commercial pound-nets; 1991 data, sexes combined (R2=0.9062),

mean weight at 19.2 kg.

The study by Love (1972) found that Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon mature earlier than

lake sturgeon from other bodies of water yet mature later than other freshwater species in

Ontario. Lake Nipissing males spawn for the first time between 10-20 years of age and

females between 12-22 years of age (n=77) (Figure 12). In addition to late maturity,

individual lake sturgeon do not spawn ever year. Reproduction occurs once every 5-7

years thereafter (Love 1972). When examining the growth rings from pectoral fin ray

sections a group of narrow annuli can be seen, indicating that a lake sturgeon will spawn

that year or the year after. This narrow belt of annuli lets us know how often a lake

sturgeon spawns (Roussow 1957; Love 1972).

33

Figure 12: Age at first spawn. Data from the 1971 Lake Nipissing Lake Sturgeon

Report (n=77) (Young & Love 1971).

Age frequency distribution data for lake sturgeon caught in the main body of the lake

during the commercial fishery in 1970-1971 recorded 17 age classes with a minimum age

of 13 and a maximum age of 48 (n=32). Age frequency distribution data for lake

sturgeon caught in the main body of the lake during the commercial fishery in 1971

recorded 31 age classes with a minimum age of 11 and a maximum age of 51 (n=128).

Age frequency distribution data from the main body of the lake is organized by age

(Figure 13).

Figure 13: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from Lake

Nipissing caught in commercial pound-nets; A) 1970 data, sexes combined, mean

age at 23.4 years with 17 age classes (range age-13 to age-48), B) 1971 data, sexes

combined, mean age at 23.2 years with 31 age classes (range age-11 to age-51).

34

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in 1970 recorded 14 age classes >15 years.

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in 1971 recorded 26 age classes >15 years.

3.2.2 Management Efforts Post Commercial Fisheries

In January of 1991, Mike Decaen, presiding Mayor of Sturgeon Falls expressed concern

over the decline of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing and was interested to learn if a

sturgeon hatchery was possible for the area. Art Currie, MNR director in 1991, estimated

only 4% remained of the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon population in comparison to the

turn of the century (MNR 1991; Mosseler 1991). At this time, efforts to begin collecting

data on lake sturgeon began. In March of 1991 the MNR consulted with Chiefs and

Council from Nipissing First Nation and Dokis First Nation. All parties were in

agreement to assist with data collection. Projects included; 1) habitat assessments at

spawning sites at the Sturgeon, South and Little Sturgeon Rivers, 2) the purchase of all

lake sturgeon caught in commercial pound-nets to collect biological measures/weights,

and to tag each lake sturgeon and live release them, 3) conduct netting and drift net

projects during spawning period at the Sturgeon River, and 4) to issue a press release on a

sturgeon recovery plan – a “Save the Sturgeon Town of Sturgeon Falls Sans Faute

“without fault” logo was created to bring awareness to this once plentiful fish in Lake

Nipissing (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Save the Sturgeon logo (Reprinted with the permission of and in

accordance with a data licence agreement with the MNR 2014 [MNR 1991]).

35

A management review one year later confirmed that lake sturgeon still reproduced

naturally in the Sturgeon River. It was expected that lake sturgeon would increase as

angling and commercial fishing had been restricted. Increase in survival of lake sturgeon

was also expected, as a result of a new process the paper mill had implemented to

improve waste water quality entering directly into the Sturgeon River. It was

recommended by the MNR that a sturgeon hatchery would not be the best approach for

recovery efforts because natural reproduction was taking place. A decision to artificially

stock lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing could potentially cause negative impacts on the

genetics and survival of the population (MNR 1992). Recently it has been found that

stocked lake sturgeon could produce less offspring creating loss of genetic diversity in a

population (Welsh et al 2010). Recommendations by the MNR were made later in 1992

after lake sturgeon fingerlings were reared and released into Lake Nipissing. A total of

730 fingerlings were released. Lake sturgeon fingerlings were caught during initial drift

netting assessments at the Sturgeon River in 1991, indicating that natural reproduction

occurred. Fingerlings were raised in an artificial environment and fed before releasing

them. No other results regarding the fate of these fingerlings has been found, including

how long they were raised or what they were fed. There is no information indicating that

a lake sturgeon hatchery was actually put in place.

3.2.3 Habitat

Lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing need to be acknowledged as a diverse part of Lake

Nipissing’s ecosystem. Becoming informed of various habitats used by lake sturgeon is

important for the protection of the species (Golder Associates Ltd 2011). Because of

their life history, living for long periods of time and taking years to reach great lengths

and weights as well as maturity, lake sturgeon are considered a good indicator of

ecosystem health (DiVincenti et al 2012).

A Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon feeding habitat study was undertaken in 1971. For this

study a total of 90 lake sturgeon caught in pound-nets were analyzed for stomach

contents. Of those 90, sixty-eight stomachs were empty. The following list documents

the stomach contents of the remaining 22 lake sturgeon studied: crayfish, aquatic

36

vegetation, mayfly larvae, unidentified minnows, perch, segmented worms, digested

matter, snails, clams and other (Love 1972).

The original three spawning sites of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon identified in 1971 were

the Little Sturgeon River, the South River and the Sturgeon River (Love 1972). Fast

running falls or chutes provide perfect spawning habitat. Only two spawning sites remain

active – the South River and the Sturgeon River (Figure 15) (Love 1972; McKee 2003).

The third spawning site at the Little Sturgeon River is now known to have an absence of

spawning lake sturgeon (Figure 15). The result of dynamite use in the 1930’s is thought

to have diminished the lake sturgeon population once known to inhabit the Little

Sturgeon River (Love 1972). Biologist Jim Gage, interviewed Mr. Renaud and Mr.

Moerman both of Laronde Creek (a tributary of Lake Nipissing) in 1960 and recorded

that both observed dead lake sturgeon floating in the river after dynamite explosions

(Love 1972). An increase of outboard motor activity was also thought to have

contributed to the absence of lake sturgeon in the Little Sturgeon River (Love 1972).

Young and Love summarized information provided by Jim Gage. Interview research

conducted by Mr. Gage in 1960 with local residents reported that Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon are known to spawn as follows: Mr. George Collins of Sturgeon Falls felt that

lake sturgeon still come up the Sturgeon River; Mr. Dave Coventry of Sturgeon Falls also

claims lake sturgeon spawn in the Sturgeon River at the Falls; Sturgeon were also

reported jumping in the South River. It seems that during this time (1960) the Sturgeon

River was actually considered by many as having no real importance as a spawning

habitat for lake sturgeon because the surface and bottom area of the river was covered in

wood fiber effluent created by the pulp and paper mill up stream (Young & Love 1971).

37

Figure 15: Confirmed spawning locations for lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing are

the Sturgeon River and the South River. The Little Sturgeon River highlighted in

red, no longer supports spawning lake sturgeon.

Another spawning site within the Lake Nipissing Watershed identified by Elders (TEK)

from DFN at the Restoule River could not be confirmed during a 2012 adult lake

sturgeon netting assessment completed by the AOFRC and DFN. This population is

separated from the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon populations as they are situated below

the dam on the French River.

In 1960-1963 a study was conducted to determine movement patterns of lake sturgeon in

Lake Nipissing (Young & Love 1971). Population estimates for undersized lake sturgeon

(1960-1963) was 1,451 (with a range of 850 – 1,735) (Young & Love 1971). A total of

217 undersized lake sturgeon were tagged with yellow streamers (Young & Love 1971).

Of those 217 tagged fish, only 20 were recaptured. The single result determined from

these data was that recaptures were thought to have moved far from where they were

caught (Young & Love 1971). For example, one sturgeon was found 40 km away a year

later from where it was first tagged. Another was found 10 km away from where it was

found only five days previously. Exact locations were not provided.

38

Early attempts to determine movement patterns (1960’s) failed as the tags and streamers

used for the projects were later discovered to be manufactured from non-stable material

and tended to fall off lake sturgeon over time. Recaptures displaying scars from the tags

were evident. No lake sturgeon from this study was recaptured after a three-year period.

In 1970, five undersized (635 mm – gill opening to the point of were the dorsal fin

connects to the flesh of the body) lake sturgeon were tagged at Sandy Island. One of the

five was recaptured a month later on the north shore of Lake Nipissing, although the

exact location of the recapture was not identified. No further data relating to the

movement patterns of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon were developed until 2008 when

radio-telemetry began.

From 2008 to 2012, studies were done by the NFN Natural Resources Department to

determine movement patterns of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing using TEK and radio-

telemetry. A total of 12 adult lake sturgeon were internally radio-tagged from the South

River in 2008 and a total of 12 adult lake sturgeon were internally radio-tagged from the

Sturgeon River in 2010. Results from the radio-telemetry study determined that lake

sturgeon occupy a large area of Lake Nipissing from the Sturgeon River to the Iron Island

to Goose Islands and down to the South River during the summer months. TEK

determined that lake sturgeon once used a larger area of Lake Nipissing all along the

shoreline from the South Bay to North Bay, along the north shoreline past Duchesnay

Creek and the Little Sturgeon River, along Garden Village shoreline to the Sturgeon

River, down to Wigwam and finally back to the South River, as well as an area between

the Goose Islands and the Iron Island.

By combining TEK with MSS data a general habitat and movement patterns areas has

been identified (Figure 16).

39

Figure 16: Movement Patterns Map (modified from NFN data – supported by

AFSAR; Natural Resources Canada 2016).

3.2.4 Threats and Habitat Destruction

Lake sturgeon experience extremely high mortality rates “during egg, larval and juvenile

stages” of life (Crossman et al 2014). One hundred percent mortality can be experienced

in water temperatures of 20ᵒC or more (Golder Associates Ltd. 2011). Predation on lake

sturgeon eggs and larval by other fish may contribute to the loss of recruitment

(Caroffino et al 2010). When larval sturgeon drift downstream they are also vulnerable

to predation because they have no defence mechanisms (Golder Associates Ltd 2011).

Lake sturgeon are benthic feeders harvesting nutrients from both river and lake beds.

Late maturation increases the vulnerability of lake sturgeon to bio-accumulate toxins

before they reach adult spawn and throughout their which are relatively long compared to

other freshwater fish species (Beamesderfer & Farr 1997).

Overfishing has been a continued threat toward lake sturgeon decline since European

contact. In Lake Nipissing, lake sturgeon has been commercially fished almost to

extinction within a 100-year period. A photo of a commercial catch of lake sturgeon was

included from 1965 showing 77 lake sturgeon harvest (Figure 17).

40

Figure 17: Commercial catch of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing. Total day

harvest of 77 lake sturgeon (for a total of 1,827 lbs. of sturgeon meat and 125 lbs. of

caviar) (Reprinted with the permission of and in accordance with a data agreement

with the MNR 2014 [photo taken by Fluvian 1965; Mosseler 1991]).

A variety of additional factors also contributed to the destruction of Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon habitat. Pulp and paper mills were a major source of employment for people

during the second half of the nineteenth century in Canada (Robinson et al 1994).

Between 1895 – 1924 a number of pulp mills for newsprint were built in Ontario. The

Sturgeon Falls Pulp Company was built on a small scale in 1896 and then expanded by

1898, just above a well-known lake sturgeon spawning site situated slightly north of Lake

Nipissing on the Sturgeon River (Golder Associates Ltd. 2011; Kuhlberg 2015). Over

time, the river bottom below the falls became covered with pulp/wood fibers from the

mill and the water became turbid with suspended materials, Sturgeon River became

insignificant as a spawning site for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon by 1960 (Young & Love

1972).

In 1977 a study done on the Sturgeon River to assess water quality was completed

(Hendry et al 1982). Wastewater from the pulp and paper mill was allowed to discharge

below the falls into Lake Nipissing at approximately two million gallons of the water

dammed per day (Hendry et al 1982). Pulp and paper wastewater foaming treatment to

remove wood fiber typically produces high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), high

41

chemical oxygen demand (COD), turbidity and microorganism growth (Hendry et al

1989; Ma et al 2007). The presence of filamentous microorganisms can be recognized as

thick, scum-like foam on the surface of the river (Chua et al 2000). The water below the

falls was described as brown and foaming (Hendry et al 1982). In 1992, Pulp and Paper

Effluent Regulations were announced under the Canadian Fisheries Act (McMaster et al

2006). New regulations set stricter “limits for BOD and total suspended solids”

(McMaster et al 2006) but applied only to mills built after November 1971 (McMaster et

al 2006). This grandfather clause allowed the continued degradation of water quality in

the Sturgeon River until the mill closed in 2002 (McMaster et al 2006; High 2009; Opp &

Walsh 2010).

Two other contributing factors to the loss/destruction of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

habitat were sewage treatment plants and hydroelectric generating stations. A small

sewage treatment plant continues to operate two kilometers below the important

spawning habitat at the Sturgeon River. In the past, this sewage plant treated

approximately one million gallons of sewage per day before releasing effluent into the

Sturgeon River (Hendry et al 1982). Sewage treatments used to affect water quality in

both Sturgeon River and Lake Nipissing by changing the dissolved oxygen, nutrient

concentrations, and change in water temperatures and increase of toxins in sediment

(DFO 2014). A hydroelectric station operated by West Nipissing Power Generation, now

occupies the site of the original pulp and paper mill built at the Sturgeon Falls in 1898

(Ontario Rivers Alliance 2016; MNR n.d.). Low water levels caused by this

hydroelectric dam result in extreme changes to water temperature, lower levels of oxygen

and dried up habitat (Ferguson & Duckworth 1997). Both adult and young adult sturgeon

get trapped in shallow areas when high water levels are suddenly switch to low water

levels. A recent news article by the Tribune of West Nipissing entitled “Sturgeon seen

struggling in shallow water after dam closure” (Loranger 2011), publically documents

that over several decades Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon have been stranded in shallow

pools at this location. In the 1960 interviews conducted by Jim Gage, to collect local

knowledge regarding lake sturgeon, a Mr. Renaud acknowledges that water levels were

shut down as late as 1942 at the Sturgeon River (when the Abitibi Company operated the

water flow) during prime spawning season and that large lake sturgeon were seen caught

42

in shallow pools (Young & Love 1971). The main two factors negatively affecting lake

sturgeon in Lake Nipissing have been habitat destruction of spawning sites and

overfishing.

3.3 Fisheries Data

For the purposes of this MRP, fisheries assessments conducted between 1991 - 2012 were

organized into three separate periods. The first time period (1991 - 1995) represents

assessments beginning immediately after the closure of the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

commercial fisheries. No assessments were conducted between 1996 and 2000 except

for an experimental juvenile assessment attempted in 1997 by the AOFRC. The second

time period (2001 - 2005) represents assessments that started approximately 10 years

after closure. The third time period (2006 - 2012) represents assessments that started

approximately 15 years after closure. The combination of these three time periods

documents a timeline which the majority of fisheries data was collected.

3.3.1 Larval Drift Netting Assessments

An attempt to confirm if lake sturgeon were reproducing at the Sturgeon River was

completed in 1992 by setting drift nets (similar methods for drift nets can be found in

Appendix C). This 1992 assessment was successful in confirming that lake sturgeon

were reproducing. This assessment continued for an additional three years. Between the

years of 1992 - 1995 a total of 5,147 fry were captured, averaging a total length of 15 –

20 mm (MNR 1995). Water temperatures recorded in 1992 were between 10 ᵒC – 20 ᵒC.

In 1995 an additional 1,859 fry were caught; ninety-one percent of the total catch caught

on June 27 and on June 29, 1995. No temperatures were provided. Fry were caught

between the hours of 9:00 pm and 12:00 am. No further larval assessment data could be

found after 1995. In 2015 larval drift netting was completed at the South River by the

AOFRC and NFN, a single larval lake sturgeon was caught on June 3rd

with a total length

of 21 mm (AOFRC 2015). The surface water temperature at the time of capture was

17.7ᵒC (AOFRC 2015).

43

3.3.2 Fecundity

Fecundity or number of eggs is calculated based on the weight of each spawning female

(in Murphy & Willis (Eds.) 1996). The number of eggs can vary in fish of the same

weight, for example, a female lake sturgeon of the same weight can produce half the

amount of eggs (Scott & Crossman 1998). However, it is estimated that approximately

5,000 eggs per pound (11,023 eggs per kilogram) are produced (Harkness & Dymond

1961) (Figure 18). Simply put a 100 lb. female lake sturgeon may produce an average of

500,000 eggs during spawn. Actual examples collected from secondary data of Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon can be seen below (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Estimated fecundity versus weight from the South River and Sturgeon

River locations (1991-1995). Using estimates from Harkness and Dymond (1961).

A total of 27 females were identified at the South River and Sturgeon River combined

(1991 - 1995). Data collected from this study estimated a 1110 mm female released

approximately 100,000 eggs, a 1690 mm female released 500,000 eggs, and a 1890 mm

female released 425,000 eggs (Figure 18).

A total number of 32 females were identified at the South River and Sturgeon River

combined (2001 – 2005). Data collected from this study estimated a 1320 mm female

44

released 235,000 eggs, a 1487 mm female released 300,000 eggs, and a 1635 mm female

released 315,000 eggs.

A total number of 24 females were identified at the South River and Sturgeon River

combined (2006 - 2012). Data collected from this study estimated a 1155 mm female

released 110,000 eggs, a 1715 mm female released 414,000 eggs, a 1808 mm female

released 460,000 eggs.

Successful sex identification of female lake sturgeon in the field is difficult unless

researchers actually observe the release of female eggs. Females may be present during

assessments but not in the act of spawning. Females appear very similar to males. For

example; a suspected female captured at the South River in 2005 was later confirmed

male during recapture in 2008 at the Sturgeon River. This lake sturgeon was also the first

sturgeon scientifically identified to utilize both Lake Nipissing spawning habitats.

3.3.3 Mark-Recapture Assessments

Adult mark-recapture assessments (methods explained in Appendix D) have taken place

only sporadically since 1991. Not all data regarding number of nets or data recorded

when field projects were completed are available. The first netting assessment took place

at the Sturgeon River in 1991 and then the South River in 1992.

Netting assessments from MNR, NFN and AOFRC at the South and Sturgeon Rivers

from 1991 - 2012 caught a total of 748 lake sturgeon over the years. Total lengths, fork

lengths, and weight were recorded. Sex was determined and age samples taken.

Tables 1-2 summarizes netting information and mean total lengths (mm), weight (kg),

and age (years) for adult lake sturgeon from the South and Sturgeon Rivers. A total of

482 lake sturgeon were tagged at the South River between the years 1992 - 2009. A total

of 266 lake sturgeon were tagged at the Sturgeon River between the years 1991 - 2012.

Data collected from 1991 - 2012 are organized by location – South River or Sturgeon

River and organized into three separate time periods; 1991 - 1995, 2001 - 2005, 2006 -

45

2012. The length-frequency distributions for each location and year between 1991 - 2012

are shown in Appendix F.

Table 1: South River netting summary and means for spawning lake sturgeon.

Data collected from MNR, NFN and A/OFRC.

South River

Time

Periods

Year

Dates

Sets

CUE

Water Temp.

Range

Mean

TL

(mm)

Mean

W

(kg)

Mean

Age

(years)

1st

1992 May 10–May 22 16 2.63 16ᵒC–18ᵒC 1345 18.4 no data



1995 May 15–May 18 no data 14ᵒC–15ᵒC 1300 13.8 no data

2nd

2001 May 22–May 29 no data 17ᵒC–18ᵒC 1392 17.1 22.4

2002 May 15–June 05 41 2.68 9ᵒC–15ᵒC 1395 19.3 24.8

2003 May 13–June 12 21 3.28 12ᵒC–22ᵒC 1390 18.1 25.8

2004 May 05–June 09 28 2.46 7ᵒC–20ᵒC 1363 18.6 25.6

2005 May 04–June 15 30 1.56 6ᵒC–25ᵒC 1451 21.2 26.4

3rd

2008 May 09–May 30 no data 10ᵒC–16ᵒC 1296 13.0 no data

2009 May 11–June 04 19 2.53 12ᵒC–15ᵒC 1328 15.0 no data

Table 2: Sturgeon River netting summary and means for spawning lake

sturgeon. Data collected from MNR, NFN and A/OFRC.

Sturgeon River

Time

Periods

Year

Dates

Sets

CUE

Water Temp.

Range

Mean

TL

(mm)

Mean

W

(kg)

Mean

Age

(years)

1st




1994 May 30–June 06 18 0.61 14ᵒC–15.5ᵒC 1366 19.1 no data

2nd

2001 May 30–June 12 41 0.61 15ᵒC–19ᵒC 1325 15.4 20.8

2002 May 21–June 17 79 0.29 12ᵒC–16ᵒC 1324 16.6 21.0

2003 May 05–June 17 128 0.13 10.5ᵒC–19ᵒC 1280 13.2 18.1

3rd

2006 May 18–June 14 65 0.37 15ᵒC–18ᵒC 1316 16.0 19.3

2007 May 16–June 15 no data 13ᵒC–22ᵒC 1327 15.2 no data

2008 May 15–June 09 54 0.50 12ᵒC–16ᵒC 1317 insufficient no data

2011 May 30–June 15 72 0.42 13.6ᵒC–18ᵒC 1333 14.6 15.5

2012 May 22–June 12 90 0.71 16.6ᵒC–19ᵒC 1348 18.2 no data

46

The mean TL of adult lake sturgeon from 1992 - 1995 at the South River was 1337 mm

with a range of 1041 mm - 1830 mm (n=143). The mean TL of adult lake sturgeon from

2001 - 2005 at the South River was 1394 mm with a range of 1040 mm – 2000 mm

(n=319). The mean TL of adult lake sturgeon from 2008 - 2009 at the South River was

1315 mm with a range of 1040 mm – 1808 mm (n=75) (Figure 19, A). The mean TL of

adult lake sturgeon from 1991 - 1994 at the Sturgeon River was 1383 mm with a range of

990 mm – 1790 mm (n=47). The mean TL of adult lake sturgeon from 2001 - 2003 was

1314 mm with a range of 1023 mm – 1881 mm (n=61). The mean TL of adult lake

sturgeon from 2006 - 2012 was 1336 mm with a range of 1041 mm – 1902 mm (n=138)

(Figure 19, B).

Length frequency distributions are organized by location over three time periods (Figure

19).

Figure 19: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from spawning locations in

Lake Nipissing caught in mark-recapture gill net assessments. Length-frequencies

are organized by location and three time periods; A) South River (1992-1995, 2001-

2005, 2008-2009); and B) Sturgeon River (1991-1994, 2001-2003, 2006-2012).

Length frequency distribution data is also organized by the three time periods (1991 -

1995, 2001 - 2005, 2006 - 2012) comparing the South River and the Sturgeon River

(Figure 20).

47

Figure 20: Length-frequency for adult lake sturgeon from spawning locations in

Lake Nipissing – South River and Sturgeon River caught in the mark-recapture gill

net assessments. Length-frequencies are organized by time period with locations

combined; A) 1991-1995, B) 2001-2005, and C) 2006-2012.

Netting assessments from DFN and the AOFRC at the Upper-French River from 2012

caught a total of 15 lake sturgeon that were biologically sampled for total length, girth

and weight. Sex was also determined. No age samples were taken. The mean total

length was 1372 mm (1040 mm – 1621 mm) (n=14). The mean weight was 16.2 kg (6.4

kg – 31.8 kg) (n=14).

48

In 1997, the AOFRC completed an initial juvenile lake sturgeon assessment. A total of

13 juveniles were caught and tagged. Only seven of the 13 lake sturgeon caught were

aged. Mean age was 2.88 years. Mean total length was 421 mm and total weight was

438 g (Table 3). No methods were available.

Table 3: Characteristics of juvenile lake sturgeon caught in Lake Nipissing

Time

Period

Total

Length

(mm)

Weight

(g)

Age

(yrs.)

Recapture

(same year)

Year of Hatch

1st

390 250

370 250

398 300

348 200

345 200 2 1995

533 750 3 1994

650 1100 4 1993

335 225 2 1995

688 1550 5 1992

327 225 2 1995

396 250 3 1994

In 2008 efforts to collect data from juvenile lake sturgeon began at NFN with support

from AFSAR. A total of 516 juveniles were caught incidentally from NFN commercial

walleye (Sander vitreus) nets (Table 4). Juvenile age distributions are displayed in

Figure 24. Methods for the juvenile lake sturgeon mark-recapture assessments can be

found in Appendix E.

Table 4: Incidental catch of juvenile lake sturgeon by NFN commercial

fishermen summary and means.

Juvenile lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing

Time

Period Year Tagged Recaptured Mean

TL(mm)

Mean

FL(mm)

Mean

W(g)

Mean

age(years)

3rd

2008 96 0 735 661 No data 4.3

2009 105 9 743 665 No data 4.2

2010 44 8 726 671 No data 4.2

2011 198 15 645 577 1753 3.4

2012 73 19 663 No data 2286 No data

49

Length-weight relationships for all adult lake sturgeon were log10 transformed (n=782)

(Figure 21). Then length-weight relationships (South River and Sturgeon River

combined) from the 1991-1995 time period was y = 3.07x – 8.399, R2 = 0.84 (n=189).

The length-weight relationships (South River and Sturgeon River combined) from the

2001-2005 time period was y = 3.459x – 9.63, R2 = 0.83 (n=380). The length-weight

relationships (South River and Sturgeon River combined) from the 2006 - 2012 time

period was y = 3.2x – 8.83, R2 = 0.84 (n=213).

Figure 21: Logarithmically transformed length-weight relationships for adult

lake sturgeon from the South River and Sturgeon River (1991-2012) (n=782).

Length-weight relationships (South River and Sturgeon River locations combined) varied

as follows; an overall slope of 3.07 during the first time period (1991-1995), an overall

slope of 3.45 during the second time period (2001 - 2005), and an overall slope of 3.2

during the third time period (2006 - 2012). Lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing on average

has a slope of 3.3. The slope from length-weight relationships of lake sturgeon varied

little from a value of 3.3 (Beamish et al 1996). By way of comparison, lake sturgeon

captured during the commercial fisheries (pound-nets) in Lake Nipissing in the years

1970, 1971 and again in 1991, show slopes of 3.1, 3.3 and 3.8, respectively. A small

sample (n=15) of adult lake sturgeon measured from the Upper-French River in 2012

(AOFRC 2012; DFN 2012), have a slope of 2.3, smaller than lake sturgeon measured at

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2.95 3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30

Log 1

0 W

eig

ht

(kg)

Log10 Total Length (mm)

1991-1995 (n=189)

2001-2005 (n=380)

2006-2012 (n=213)

n=782

50

the Sturgeon River that same year with a slope of 3.0 (n=64). Lake sturgeon at the South

River measuring below a slope of 3.0 include: 1993 with a slope of 2.7 and 1995 with a

slope of 2.8. Lake sturgeon at the Sturgeon River measuring below a slope of 3.0

include: 1992 with a slope of 2.8, 2001 with a slope of 2.9 and 2003 with a slope of 2.8

(Appendix G).

Figure 22 records logarithmically transformed length-weight relationships (1991-2012)

for all lake sturgeon (adult and juvenile) (N=1093). Adult data collected (South River

and Sturgeon River combined) between the years 1991-1995 recorded a total mean length

of 1349 mm ± 173.8 (S.D) and a mean weight of 17.7 kg ± 8.4 (S.D). Adult data

collected (South River and Sturgeon River combined) between the years 2001-2005

recorded a total mean length of 1382 mm ± 150 (S.D) and a mean weight of 18.4 kg ± 9.4

(S.D). Adult data collected (South River and Sturgeon River combined) between the

years 2006-2012 – recorded a total mean length of 1328 mm ± 153 (S.D) and a mean

weight of 15.7 kg ± 7.1 (S.D). Juvenile data collected from main portion of the lake

between the years 2011 – 2012 recorded a total mean length of 644 mm ± 196 (S.D) and

a mean weight of 1.9 kg ± 1.9 (S.D).

Figure 22: Logarithmically transformed length-weight relationships for all lake

sturgeon (adult and juvenile) (1991-2012) (n=1093).

y = 3.3264x - 9.2103 R² = 0.9847

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40Log 1

0 W

eig

ht

(kg)

Log10 Total Length (mm)

n=1093

51

The von Bertalanffy growth model for the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was Lt=1667 (1-

e (-0.072(t-3.74))

) (Figure 23). Based on this equation the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

population was estimated to have reached a maximum length of 1667 mm (n = 817).

Insufficient age data collected each year makes it difficult to produce accurate individual

growth analysis estimates for each year projects were conducted. All age data collected

from both adults and juveniles between the years 2001 – 2012 were combined to produce

the growth analysis chart below (Figure 23).

Figure 23: von Bertalanffy growth curve Lt=1666.824, k=0.072, t0=-3.74 for lake

sturgeon from Lake Nipissing (adult and juvenile).

Sex data for growth analysis was also combined for the von Bertalanffy growth model.

Data from 1971-72 determined the minimum age of maturity for a male Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon is 10 years (Love 1972). The average length for a 10 year old lake sturgeon

is 1040 mm.

The majority of age data recorded for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was done by

collecting structures of the pectoral fin ray. Since fishery assessments began in 1991 at

the closing of the commercial fisheries, the oldest Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon identified

was a 97-year-old male captured at the South River location (2002).

52

Mean age of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the South River location between 2001 –

2005 was recorded at 25 years. Mean age of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the South

River location in 2015 was recorded at 20 years (AOFRC 2015). The mean age of Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon at the South River location has decreased by 5 years between

2001 – 2015 from 25 to 20 years of age. The mean age of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

at the South River location is 2.6 years higher than at the Sturgeon River location.

Mean age of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the Sturgeon River location between 2001 –

2003 was recorded at 20 years. Mean age of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the

Sturgeon River location in 2006 and in 2011 was recorded at 17.4 years. The mean age

of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the Sturgeon River location has decreased 2.6 years

between 2001 – 2011 from 20 to 17.4 years of age. In a Sturgeon River 2011 study, the

majority of lake sturgeon captured were below 20 years of age. This indicates that the

majority of lake sturgeon captured for this study had hatched after the closure of the

sturgeon fishery (1991) and that the lake sturgeon assessed were just entering into

maturity. No age data has been collected from juvenile lake sturgeon between 1991 -

1995, or 2000 - 2005.

The mean age of juvenile Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in 2008 was 4.3 years. In 2009 it

was 4.2 years, in 2010 it was 4.2 years and in 2011 it was 3.4 years. The age range was

between 1 – 8 years (n=406) (2008 - 2011) (Figure 24). There were a total of 205

juvenile Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon captured and tagged between 2008 - 2011 ≤610

mm, lake sturgeon that are most likely 4 years of age or less. No age structures have

been collected for juveniles since 2011.

53

Figure 24: Age-frequency distribution for juvenile lake sturgeon from Lake

Nipissing (2008-2011); A) 2008 mean age at 4.3 years, B) 2009 mean age at 4.2 years,

C) 2010 mean age at 4.2 years, D) 2011 mean age at 3.4 years.

In a South River (2015) assessment and a Sturgeon River assessment (2011) it was

determined that all lake sturgeon captured were hatched after the closure of the

commercial fisheries (1991). The first sign of mature lake sturgeon at the South River

after the closure of the commercial fisheries was in 2004. All were identified as males.

The first sign of mature lake sturgeon at the Sturgeon River after the closure of the

commercial fisheries was in 2002 and 2003. All were identified as males.

Identifying sex beyond a certain age is beneficial to fisheries management of lake

sturgeon because it indicates a healthy sturgeon population – female lake sturgeon ≥70

years old and males ≥40 years old would indicate a healthy population (Bauman et al

2011). Between 2003 – 2005 only three males over the age of 40 years old were

identified in Lake Nipissing and no females over the age of 70 years old were identified

at all.

54

Identifying the number of age classes helps to determine whether or not a population is

self-sustaining. According to the paper entitled “Population status and demographics of

lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the St. Mary’s River, from 2000-2007” (Bauman

et al 2011), a lake sturgeon is considered an adult >15 years of age, and sub-adults at age-

5 to age-15 (Barth et al 2009; Bauman et al 2011). A healthy lake sturgeon population

has “20 or more adult age classes” (Bauman et al 2011). Through interpretation of data

generated from fin ray sampling the number of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon age classes

in adults >15 years can be determined. Age class and range data are organized separately

for the South River and the Sturgeon River locations and by year (Table 5).

Table 5: South River and Sturgeon River age classes >15 years old

South River Sturgeon River

Time Periods Year Number of

age classes >15

Year Number of

age classes >15

2nd

2001 14 2001 11

2002 26 2002 9

2003 19 2003 6

2004 20 No age data

No age data 2005 NA

3rd

No age data

No age data 2006 11

2011 5

NA – not applicable - age class data for 2005 was not included due to insufficient data.

Of the 47 lake sturgeon assessed only 13 age samples were collected.

No age structures were collected from either the South River or the Sturgeon River

between 1991 - 1995.

Age frequency distribution data for lake sturgeon caught at the South River recorded a

mean age of 22.4 years with 15 age classes (range age 14 – 29) in 2001. In 2002 a mean

age of 24.8 years with 29 age classes (range age 13 – 97). In 2003 a mean age of 25.8

years with 20 age classes (range age 14 – 60). In 2004 a mean age of 25.5 years with 23

age classes (range age 10 – 66). In 2005 a mean age of 26.5 years with 9 age classes

(range age 12 – 60) (Figure 25). No age frequency distribution data were collected from

the South River between the years of 2006 - 2012.

55

Figure 25: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the South

River (2001-2005); A) 2001 mean age at 22.4 years with 15 age classes (range age-14

- age-39), B) 2002 mean age at 24.8 years with 29 age classes (range age-13 - age-97),

C) 2003 mean age at 25.8 years with 20 age classes (range age-14 - age-60), D) 2004

mean age at 25.5 years with 23 age classes (range age-10 - age-66), E) 2005 mean age

at 26.5 years with 9 age classes (range age-12 – age-60).

56

Age frequency distribution data for lake sturgeon caught at the Sturgeon River recorded a

mean age of 20.8 years with 13 age classes (range age 14 – 38) in 2001. In 2002 a mean

age of 21.0 years with 10 age classes (range age 9 – 46). In 2003 a mean age of 18.1

years with 7 age classes (range age 10 – 32) (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon

River (2001, 2002, 2003); A) 2001 mean age at 20.8 years with 13 age classes (range

age-14 - age-38), B) 2002 mean age at 21.0 years with 10 age classes (range age-9 –

age-46), C) 2003 mean age at 18.1 years with 7 age classes (range age-10 – age-32).

Age frequency distribution data for lake sturgeon caught at the Sturgeon River recorded a

mean age of 19.3 years with 16 age classes (range age 9 – 48) in 2006. In 2011, a mean

age of 15.5 years with 10 age classes (range age 11 – 25) (Figure 27).

57

Figure 27: Age-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon

River (2006 and 2011); A) 2006 mean age at 19.3 years with 16 age classes (range

age-9 – age-48), B) 2011 mean age at 15.5 years with 10 age classes (range age-11 –

age-25).

3.3.4 Population Estimates

The 50/500 rule guides contemporary conservation management assessments of

population sustainability assuming an equal sex ratio and equal contribution to next

generations apply. A minimum of 500 breeding adults is required to maintain the

adaptive genetic variation for lake sturgeon populations with a number factor (N) of no

less than 50 (Earle 2002; Bauman et al 2011). Less than 50 breeding adults would mean

vulnerability to inbreeding. These are minimum values and should not be confused as a

sustainable population goal (Rieman & Allendorf 2001 in Earle 2002).

No estimate for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon could be made immediately after the

closure of the commercial fishery in 1991 or during the (1991-1995) time period for the

South River (adult), Sturgeon River (adult) or the main body of the lake (juvenile) due to

lack of data. One adult population estimate at the South River (2002 – 2009) was

recorded at 562 (529 - 621, 95% CI) based on a total of 305 (M=271) marked lake

sturgeon. A second adult population estimate at the South River covering fewer years

(2003 – 2009) was recorded at 337 (304 - 396, 95% CI) based on a total of 196 (M=162)

marked lake sturgeon (Table 6). No estimate for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon at the

South River could be made between 2009 – 2012 due to lack of data.

There was no data collected during the 2000 - 2005 second time period. A population

estimate for the Sturgeon River during the third time period (2006 – 2012) was estimated

58

to be 316 (300 - 352, 95% CI) based on a total of 154 (M=75) marked lake sturgeon. A

population estimate for juveniles in the main portion of Lake Nipissing was estimated to

be 1,570 (1,527 – 1,641, 95% CI) based on a total of 520 (M=248) marked lake sturgeon

between the years 2008 – 2012, one juvenile lake sturgeon was recorded as killed (Table

6).

Table 6: Population estimate summary for the adult lake sturgeon from the

South River, the Sturgeon River and the juveniles from the main

portion of the Lake.

Marking Event M Recapture

Event

R N 95% CI

South River 2002-2005 271 2008-2009 44 562 529-621

2003-2005 162 2008-2009 44 337 304-396

Sturgeon River 2006-2008 75 2011-2012 24 316 300-352

Lake Nipissing

Juvenile

2008-2010 248 2011-2012 57 1570 1527-1641

M = the number of fish marked in the marking event, R = the number of fish recaptured

in the recapture event, and N = the number of fish estimated in the population by location

with upper and lower 95% CI (confidence intervals).

If the South River and the Sturgeon River populations were considered one whole

population, the sum of the lower 95% confidence interval is 604 adults. This provides

cautious optimism for the sustainability of the genetic stock. Unfortunately, certain data

is lacking from Nipissing’s assessments to facilitate a direct comparison to criteria set by

the 50/500 benchmark. First, there is not enough age data to calculate age-specific

population estimates. Secondly, only 9% of sampled lake sturgeon were identified as

male or female over a 21-year period. Of those 9% almost all were identified as males.

This represents a severe sex-bias in the population and fails to meet the necessary equal

sex ratio requirements of the 50/500 rule guide.

The estimated density of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing is 0.03 fish/ha (for the entire

lake area).

59

Chapter 4

4. DISCUSSION

This MRP has sought to compile all available information and secondary data relating to

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon in one accessible database. This paper has been presented

in a comprehensive format accessible to all peoples interested in Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon by providing both Indigenous and mainstream Canadian perspectives. From the

data collected an assessment to determine the degree of recovery for Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon was made and recommendations for management strategies moving forward

were developed.

The research compiled for this MRP recognizes that the population status for Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon has not improved since the closure of the commercial fishery in

1991. For purposes of comparison, limited data sourced from other Ontario lakes

populated by lake sturgeon has been included in the Fisheries Data (4.3) section. The

‘threatened’ status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon (COSOWIC 2016) remains accurate.

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon continue to require protection from human interference.

Much can be done to reverse the factors threatening this species.

4.1 First Nation Knowledge, Rights and Responsibilities

The inclusion of Indigenous worldview and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is

extremely important to Indigenous people living around Lake Nipissing, within the Lake

Nipissing watershed, throughout Canada and the World. Historically Indigenous

perspective has not been adequately understood or respected. By examining Indigenous

TEK and fisheries experience alongside the Canadian mainstream (MS) western

perspective, we are able to more accurately analyze the contemporary status of Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon (Secretariat COSEWIC 2017)

Those who have retained Indigenous worldview through cultural experience know well

the existence of parallel Indigenous and Canadian worldviews imbedded within

60

contemporary society and identify this awareness in those they meet where it exists. The

majority of people socialized within mainstream Canadian worldview do not.

Mainstream (MS) educational institutions cannot teach Indigenous worldview, only

aspects of it. People socialized within mainstream science (MSS) constructs, regardless

of whether they are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, must become aware of the conceptual

limitations they carry when working within First Nation communities. Today,

Indigenous people themselves (many considered experts by mainstream standards)

effectively oppress and colonize their own Indigenous relations who chose not to

assimilate but to continue to ‘live’ culturally Indigenous lives to the fullest extent

possible.

Indigenous experts educated solely within MS institutions are rarely challenged regarding

their authority within First Nation communities because their credentials are upheld by

mainstream educational institutions. Often these individuals feel that the knowledge

authority they carry cannot be questioned or challenged. This negative influence exerted

within FN community is unintended and represents just one example of many unfortunate

outcomes resulting from colonization. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of

Indigenous People (UNDRIP) ratified by Canada on May 10 - 2016, states;

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to

forced assimilation or destruction of their culture” (UNDRIP 2016).

Indigenous and mainstream communities have not enjoyed the harmonious co-existence

hoped for by First Nation (FN) Chiefs in the signing of the Robinson-Huron Treaty of

1850. For our Chiefs, this treaty represented an agreement made jointly with Canadians

to formally establish peaceful co-existence between two parallel worldviews (ways of

being alive in the world) and embodied philosophies of non-interference between the

two. The basic principles of the Robinson-Huron Treaty have not been respected.

Jurisdictional issues between FN’s, municipal, provincial and federal governments in

relation to fisheries have been ongoing since its’ signing and have always proven difficult

to resolve. Past MNR enforcement of fishing regulations have not honestly reflected

Indigenous treaty rights and have been demeaning for Indigenous people (MNR 2005;

61

DFN 2012; NFN 2012). It is very difficult but not impossible for the Ministry of Natural

Resources (provincial government) to regain trust within First Nation communities.

MNR itself acknowledges the need for relationship building, creating forums for dialogue

and negotiation agreements as priorities moving forward (MNR 2005). Indigenous

communities will also continue to work towards Nation-to-Nation respect and recognition

with the federal government of Canada. There is need for honesty and an absence of

conflict of interest in Canada’s dealing with First Nations (Fontaine et al 2015).

TEK acknowledges that for one species to thrive all species and life forms must thrive

(Pierotti & Wildcat 2000). The environmental damage incurred within the Lake

Nipissing watershed is very recent and is a direct result of Canadian worldview. It is

dangerous for Indigenous people to adopt and implement mainstream attitudes - very

dangerous for the future of our children and our planet. No Peoples – mainstream or

Indigenous – have the right to push another species to extinction.

Many First Nations’ today work toward decolonization and the recovery of Indigenous

worldview. Much TEK was lost during the residential school regime (RCAP). Loss

and/or lack of awareness of Indigenous worldview is reflected in the current ‘threatened’

status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Inviting guest speakers and traditional knowledge

keepers from throughout the America’s will empower NFN and other First Nations. It is

important to protect and respect TEK carriers. Few have survived colonization and most

survivors continue to live difficult lives due to ongoing cultural interference and systemic

racism asserted through Canadian governments and representatives at all levels. Many

have shared a common fate with that of the lake sturgeon.

It is important to assure mainstream populations living in the Lake Nipissing region that

lake sturgeon was never commercially harvested by Indigenous people and is not a

targeted species by subsistence Indigenous fishers even though it is within their rights to

do so for “subsistence, cultural and ceremonial purposes” (OMNR 2009, NFN 2012,

DFN 2012). TEK asserts that the survival of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon requires

human beings to change how they interact with the natural world in their daily lives.

Mainstream Canadians and assimilated Indigenous people need to accept the challenge of

62

healthy balanced living within the natural world. Human beings can live full and healthy

lives without destroying the environment if they make it their objective to do so.

TEK informs us that the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon population was robust prior to

mainstream commercial fisheries activity. The Robinson-Huron Treaty acknowledged an

understanding to share natural resources with mainstream society. It has been the

experience of Indigenous people living within the Nipissing Watershed that mainstream

society has very nearly destroyed the entire Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon resource

through commercial fishing within a period of 100 years. Culturally Indigenous people

today find themselves trying to protect the remaining 1% of this once robust Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon population from extinction.

Knowledge in all forms is an important part of species recovery effort. This MRP has

taken preliminary steps towards developing a management strategy as encouraged by the

Ontario Recovery Strategy Series including “establishing the nature of existing threats

and future developments” and “identifying information gaps” (Golder Associates Ltd.

2011). The inclusion of First Nation rights and responsibilities is essential to the

development of a sound local scale management strategy. Indigenous perspective

informs readers of pre-colonial sustainable ecological economies and the history in this

territory of First Nation descendants.

4.2 Publications/Newspapers/Illustrations/Photographs

Local publications, newspaper articles, photographs and journals have provided a wide

array of information regarding Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon from the 1600’s to present

day. It can be acknowledged that Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon receive only a fraction of

the coverage once produced by mainstream media since the closure of the commercial

fisheries in 1991 and their current diminished status within the socio-economic reality of

local mainstream society. From an ecology standpoint, if Lake Nipissing communities

became personally aware of the history and biology of this species, perhaps they would

become invested in its’ survival. Public media could be instrumental in providing such

awareness.

63

Of particular interest regarding Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was local newspaper

coverage documenting long standing issues of non-compliance by local non-Indigenous

fishermen to commercial fisheries law. Articles report the setting of pound-nets near

Sturgeon Falls in Lake Nipissing during the commercial fisheries closure between 1908

to 1917. Also documented in the news but not recorded by the official commercial

fisheries were caviar harvests by the Mayor of Sturgeon Falls, Roy Cockburn in 1946.

Finally, it is interesting to note that although quotas for the harvest of Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon were set during 1976 and 1980 both limits were well above harvesting numbers

realized in previous years and of little consequence to the protection of the species.

4.3 Fisheries Data

The Ontario Recovery Strategy for Lake Sturgeon in Ontario currently recognizes the

lake sturgeon population status in Lake Nipissing as extant (exists in the area) and

increasing (Golder Associates Ltd. 2011; MNRF 2015). However, the findings of this

MRP do not support an increase in the sturgeon population based on an analysis of

existing data. Even though it has been shown that Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon are

reproducing and juveniles have been identified in recent years, these findings do not

indicate recovery. Furthermore, there has been virtually no Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

research done since 2012, with the exception of one study at South River in 2015. Data

collection is essential in developing recovery and protection strategies for Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon. Methods used to collect data are important contributing factors especially

when different organizations complete similar research projects/studies in fisheries

management. Standardized methods have not been used over the years. Re-establishing

data collection using standardized methods during adult mark-recapture assessments

would greatly improve our ability to accurately estimate the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

status. Based on the data compiled the recovery status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon is

not improving. The fisheries data used to help determine the status of Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon population include: total length, weight, age, and abundance. Overall there

were two main areas for analysis, they include: growth (i.e. length-weight data for adult

and juvenile lake sturgeon and length-at-age) and population estimates.

64

Growth of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon is an important data characteristic to include in

recovery efforts. Growth data including length, weight and age can be compared to other

populations and monitored over several years to help determine health of the population.

Lake sturgeon live for long periods of time and take years to reach great lengths and

weights as well as maturity. Length-weight relationships (from the South River and

Sturgeon River locations) varied as follows; an overall slope of 3.07 during the first time

period (1991 - 1995), an overall slope of 3.45 during the second time period (2001 -

2005), and an overall slope of 3.2 during the third time period (2006 - 2012). There was

no real change in length-weight relationships for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

throughout the three time periods from 1991 - 2012 after the commercial closure. On

average Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon have a slope of 3.3. Beamish et al. (1996) note that

the slope from lake sturgeon length-weight data varied little from a value of 3.3.,

indicating a normal length-weight relationship for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

compared to other lake sturgeon in Ontario. For example, lake sturgeon from the

Mississagi River, Ontario were found to have a slope of 2.8, 2.89, 3.25 and 3.35

(Tremblay 2012). Lake sturgeon from the Spanish River, Ontario was found to have a

slope of 2.64 (Tremblay 2012). Compared to Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon, the Spanish

River lake sturgeon would weigh less at a given length. The status from the Mississagi

River and Spanish River both indicated lake sturgeon populations as extant with a

population trajectory of being stable (Golder Associates Ltd 2011). When compared to

other populations of lake sturgeon in the area, length-weight relationships for Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon indicate a stable population. The data presented as part of the

analysis indicates no changes to the current population health since the overall length-

weight data is comparable to other populations of lake sturgeon in Ontario listed as

extant.

Length-at-age (von Bertalanffy growth model) for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was

estimated to reach a maximum length of 1667 mm. Lake sturgeon at this size are

considered similar in comparison to other populations of lake sturgeon in Ontario such as

the Mississagi River at a maximum length of 1643 mm (Tremblay 2012). All Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon age data came from both adults and juveniles, sexes combined,

between the years of 2001 – 2012 (during the last two time periods). A growth analysis

65

could not be generated for each year data was collected at both the Sturgeon and South

Rivers because there was not enough data. One example of lake sturgeon growing larger

then Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon comes from the United States, one of two tributaries of

the St. Lawrence River includes the Grasse River population, where lake sturgeon

(resident and migratory individuals) are documented to reach a maximum length of 1913

mm (Carlson 1995; Trested & Isely 2011). The Lake St. Clair system was the only

healthy population of lake sturgeon listed in the Ontario Recovery Strategy for Lake

Sturgeon in Ontario. However, no maximum length for lake sturgeon could be found

from the Lake St. Clair system to compare with Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon are similar when compared to other populations listed as stable in

Ontario. The data presented as part of the analysis is of limited value to assess the

population health since all data were combined to provide a single length-at-age value for

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon.

Age data was collected using the pectoral fin rays. There has been very little age data

collected for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Population recovery cannot be determined

for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon based on the data collected as age samples were (or are)

not felt to be reliable because the confidence in counting the annuli decreases after the

age of 14 years (Roussow 1957; Kaufman 2007; Bruch et al 2009). For example, the

confidence ratings from a 2006 lake sturgeon assessment from Lake Nipissing were low

(e.g. 5 out of 10) especially as the number of annuli increased (Kaufman 2007). Original

confidence rating data was not available for this analysis. However, verifying age of lake

sturgeon from pectoral fin rays is the preferred method since it does not result in

mortality (Bruch et al 2009; Chalupnicki & Dittman 2016). Age assessments from

otoliths are not the best option since the otolith is located in the middle of the head which

would cause mortality to each fish if collected (Chalupnicki & Dittman 2016). In the

past, underestimating age of lake sturgeon has contributed to the overharvest of lake

sturgeon populations (Bruch et al 2009). Today underestimating age can contribute to a

misinterpretation of the health (growth and mortality rate) of the species (Campana 2001;

Bruch et al 2009). Collecting age data from lake sturgeon immediately after the closure

of the commercial fisheries in Lake Nipissing would have been a valuable data set since

fishing mortality was reported as zero (Kaufman 2007). Mean age data could have been

66

a good indicator for the Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon population by comparing recent age

data to earlier age data post-closure (Kaufman 2007). One challenge affecting age data

for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon was the inconsistent collection of pectoral fin ray

structures over the years. In 2005, the MNR choose to stop collecting age structures for

two reasons. One, the MNR felt that the method of acquiring age samples by removing a

large piece of a lake sturgeon pectoral fin ray may be damaging to the future life of the

fish and two, felt they had enough samples in their collection without requiring further

samples. NFN also decided to stop collecting pectoral fin ray samples for similar reasons

in 2008.

The data for lake sturgeon age are sparse, but indicates that the Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon population is getting younger. The average age of lake sturgeon from the South

River from 2001 - 2005 was 25 years, from the Sturgeon River from 2001 - 2003 was 20

years old and for Sturgeon River in 2006 and 2011 was 17.4 years. This means that the

majority of lake sturgeon captured for these studies over the years had hatched after the

closure of the sturgeon fishery (1991) and that (female) lake sturgeon assessed were most

likely entering into maturity or at most have had the chance to reproduce twice. Since

fishery assessments began in 1991, the oldest Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon identified was

a 97-year-old male captured at the South River location in 2002. This lake sturgeon

would have hatched around 1905 during a time when the commercial fishery harvests

were at their peak (1900 - 1907). Given that lake sturgeon in general can attain ages of

over one hundred years for females, there is an absence of older female lake sturgeon

arriving at spawning sites in Lake Nipissing. This would indicate another challenge

affecting age data for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. A recovering population would

include older lake sturgeon to maximize recovery time (DFO 2008). Number of age

classes of 20 or more lake sturgeon over the age of 15 years would indicate the

population is self-sustaining (Bauman et al 2011). Only two years (2002 and 2004 at the

South River) indicated 20 or more adult lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing over the age of

15. However, since age data indicated a lack of older lake sturgeon these two years may

not be of significant value. Ageing lake sturgeon during their juvenile stage is the best

way to determine age when marked for recapture because in later years the age estimation

is known and more accurate (Campana 2001; Bruch et al 2009). As they grow larger

67

with age, sometimes the growth rings or annuli don’t show up which often under or over

estimates the true age of lake sturgeon (Campana 2001). No age data was collected from

juvenile lake sturgeon between 1991 - 1995, or 2000 - 2005.

A population estimate has been included as part of the status update regarding the Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon population. A baseline population estimate is an important part

of fisheries management, especially with lake sturgeon, a species at risk in Ontario. The

only reference to a past population estimate in Lake Nipissing comes from Young &

Love (1971), which estimated the population of undersized lake sturgeon to be 1,451

from a 1960 – 1963 study. Undersized lake sturgeon according to the commercial fishery

at that time was identified as 635 mm from the gill opening to the point of were the dorsal

fin connects to the flesh of the body (Young & Love 1971) or approximately 1000 mm in

total length. Lake sturgeon 10 years of age were identified at 1040 mm total length in

Lake Nipissing. Based on this information, undersized lake sturgeon from the 1960 -

1963 studies would be considered as sub-adults and juveniles, lake sturgeon that have

never had the chance to reproduce. The juvenile lake sturgeon population in the main

portion of Lake Nipissing was estimated at 1,570 (1,527 – 1,641, 95% CI) based on data

collected from 2008 – 2012. The data presented as part of the analysis is of limited value

to assess the population health since the range of the juvenile population from the 1960 –

1963 study was between 850 – 1735, indicating that the population is stable.

No estimate for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon could be made immediately after the

closure of the commercial fishery in 1991 due to lack of data, however it was expected

that lake sturgeon would increase as angling and commercial fishing had been restricted.

Since that time, sporadic mark-recapture assessments were carried out to determine Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon characteristics including size estimates of the lake sturgeon

population in order to monitor abundance (Ricker 1975; Pope et al 2010). A population

estimate could not even be attempted for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon until sufficient

numbers of lake sturgeon had been tagged. This was achieved by 2009 at the South

River and 2012 at the Sturgeon River. The adult lake sturgeon population at the South

River was estimated at 562 (529 – 621, 95% CI) (2002 – 2009) and 337 (304 – 396, 95%

CI) (2003 – 2009). The inclusion of data collected during the 2002 marking event could

68

have contributed to the higher estimate of 562 (529 -621, 95% CI) (2002 – 2009). During

that year (2002) a high number of lake sturgeon were caught in assessment nets compared

to all other years from 2001 – 2005. Adding data from 2002 to calculate a population

estimate would be inconsistent with other calculations for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon.

Only three years were used as marking events for the other two population estimates

(Sturgeon River and juveniles in the main portion of the lake). The adult lake sturgeon

population at the Sturgeon River was estimated at 316 (300 – 352, 95% CI) (2006 –

2012). In a recovering or healthy population of lake sturgeon you would see a minimum

of 500 breeding adults to maintain the minimum requirement for a genetically viable

population (Rieman & Allendorf 2001; Earle 2002; COSEWIC 2011). Using the lower

95% confidence limit (CI) of a population estimate range would be the best approach to

assess the status, using the lower limits is a precautionary approach (Earle 2002). If the

South River and the Sturgeon River populations were considered one whole population,

the sum of the adult population would equal at best 829. According to the lower CI from

the South River (2002 - 2009) and the lower CI from the Sturgeon River (2006 - 2012),

this combined number of 829 could meet the minimum requirement for a genetically

viable population (Earle 2002). Combining the lower CI is not recommended because

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon have been identified as two genetically different

populations (Welsh et al 2010). The actual overall number of breeding adult lake

sturgeon from the two spawning areas (South and Sturgeon Rivers) in Lake Nipissing

cannot be determined because the sex ratio also needs to be equal to meet the minimum

requirement for the 50/500 rule (Earle 2002). Sex data was combined for each time

period (1991 - 1995, 2000 - 2005, and 2006 - 2012) because there were not sufficient

numbers of identified males versus females. It is assumed that most lake sturgeon caught

during the mark-recapture assessments at the Sturgeon River and South River would be

considered breeding adults. This data analysis is of limited value to assess population

health because there is only one estimate per location, making it difficult to determine if

the population is increasing or decreasing.

One example of a recovering population of lake sturgeon comes from the Lake of the

Woods and Rainy River System where lake sturgeon continues to increase in abundance

(Heinrich & Friday 2014). Lake sturgeon from the Lake of the Woods - Rainy River

69

System were estimated twice to determine their abundance is increasing (Heinrich &

Friday 2014). Lake sturgeon >999 mm from the Lake of the Woods - Rainy River

System were estimated at 92,286 (45,816 - 201,875, 95% CI) in 2014, compared to

59,050 (30,736 - 121,372, 95% CI) in 2004 (Heinrich & Friday 2014). Reasons for the

estimated population increase include the prevention of overharvest that begun in 1990,

better habitat quality from pollution and higher velocity causing possible interference

with the ability to set more nets along the system since 2004. It was also mentioned that

caution should be taken when estimating the population, especially since the confidence

intervals were broad (Heinrich & Friday 2014). An example of a healthy population of

lake sturgeon comes from Lake St. Clair where the lake sturgeon population trajectory is

considered stable (Pratt 2008; Golder Associates Ltd 2011). The population estimate

from the St. Clair system was 45,506 (24,230 – 86,190, 95% CI) from 1996 - 2000

(Thomas & Haas 2002). A more recent review of lake sturgeon from the St. Clair system

indicated that it is difficult to estimate the population (Thomas & Haas 2004). It was

recommended that the St. Clair System lake sturgeon population be recalculated.

However, it is believed that the lake sturgeon population is between 20,000-40,000 fish

(Thomas & Haas 2004). When comparing the most recent Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon

juvenile population estimate from 2008 - 2012, with the past estimate from 1960 – 1963,

assessment data indicates no significant population increase but may indicate juvenile

population stability over the past 50 years. The range of 850-1,735 undersized (juvenile)

lake sturgeon from the 1960 - 1963 population estimate is comparable to the total number

of 1,570 juvenile lake sturgeon from the 2008 - 2012 estimate.

It has been determined by movement patterns that Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon occupy a

large area and travel great distances over the course of their lives. Radio telemetry

(introduced in 2008) and TEK have proven to be the superior methods of tracking lake

sturgeon movement when compared to exterior tagging. Internal tagging and mark-

recapture methods indicate that active spawning locations have been reduced from three

to two for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon. Although it may be possible that Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon have altered their historic movement pattern completely around the shores

of Lake Nipissing as a result of the destruction of the Little Sturgeon River spawning

area, more research is needed. Pollution from the pulp and paper mill and sewage

70

treatment on the Sturgeon River influenced the loss of spawning areas, water quality was

effected from effluents, in the past creating high BOD, high COD, turbidity, nutrient

concentrations, microorganism growth, change in water temperatures and increase of

toxins in sediment (Hendry et al 1989; Ma et al 2007; DFO 2014). Today, high velocity

waters as well as low water levels and pollution create difficult conditions for lake

sturgeon to spawn at the Sturgeon River. Other limiting factors affecting the recovery of

Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon include; habitats at different life stages not being identified.

It has been stated that habitat areas need to be identified in order to help in recovery

efforts for this threatened species (Daugherty et al 2008; Haxton et al 2008). Identifying

habitat suitability index values (e.g. substrate, water velocity and depth) with geographic

information system (GIS) and mark-recapture assessments can be used to determine size

and location of habitat at different life stages within Lake Nipissing and surrounding area

(Daugherty et al 2008).

Clarification on the status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon is required. COSEWIC

designated the Great Lakes St. Lawrence lake sturgeon population as ‘threatened’ (2006).

COSSARO acknowledges that all lake sturgeon within Ontario are protected (2009).

TEK asserts that a direct connection to the land and its’ resources is required to determine

best practice. Indigenous people of the Lake Nipissing region do not target Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon based on witnessing their population decimation over the past

100 years. Local fisheries management of Ontario lakes takes precedence over national

designations developed by Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon according to Canada’s Species at Risk Act remains without status designation

(2017). A limitation experienced in completing the objective of this MRP has been in the

development of one accessible database for all interested parties of the Lake Nipissing

community.

Lake sturgeon play an important role in freshwater ecosystems as indicators of health and

biodiversity (DiVincenti et al 2012). Lake sturgeon are bottom feeders which makes

them important indicators of food web changes. Their general life history makes them

vulnerable because they are a late maturing and a slow growing species. Contemporary

threats to Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon are loss of habitat and loss of TEK/local

71

knowledge. Overfishing and destruction of habitat have greatly reduced their numbers

(an estimated 1% remains). Even with the closure of the fishery lake sturgeon will never

regain historic levels (Golder Associates Ltd 2011) because of their life history and

habitat needs. For example, lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing show an un-naturally high

ratio of males to females, this may be due to the lack of identification skills or that there

really are very few females in the system. Female lake sturgeon have the ability to lay

approximately 11,000 eggs per kilogram of body weight. Female lake sturgeon must be

allowed to reach adult life stage in order to reproduce and contribute to the recovery of

their population. Other examples restricting lake sturgeon populations from regaining

historic levels include; continued mortality as incidental catch, dam entrapment, pollution

and destruction of habitat. Lake sturgeon are designated as a threatened species by

COSEWIC and require protection from human interference now more than ever. It has

been estimated that it will take 170-300 years for lake sturgeon within the Great Lakes

Upper St. Lawrence populations to make a healthy recovery from the population collapse

experienced during the past century (DFO 2008). There is still plenty of advocacy

required on behalf of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon to reverse the factors which currently

threaten them. Educational and outreach programs need to be shared as part of the

management strategy. Lake sturgeon have an important story to tell and deserve to be

acknowledged as part of Lake Nipissing’s ecosystem.

4.4 Recommendations

All available secondary data has been collected for Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon as

intended. Based on the data compiled for this MRP the recovery status of Lake Nipissing

lake sturgeon is not improving since the closure of the fishery in 1991. One of the largest

issues regarding accurately assessing the status of lake sturgeon in Lake Nipissing is a

combination of lack of data and non-standardized methods for the data already collected.

In order to make accurate assessment for lake sturgeon moving forward, the following

recommendations are:

1. The collection of local TEK relating to Lake Nipissing requires update. This

recommendation is extremely time-sensitive as many of culturally Indigenous Elders are

72

nearing the end of their lives and it is important that their knowledge not be lost. There is

also further need for consolidation and syntheses of TEK from other Indigenous

communities throughout North America and the world. Indigenous communities of the

Lake Nipissing watershed - Henvey Inlet, Dokis, Nipissing and Bear Island First Nations

could jointly develop strategic management policies towards protection and recovery of

lake sturgeon. This would reclaim the Indigenous practice of sharing TEK and scientific

data between First Nations, enhance relations, reduce competition for research dollars

and avoid unnecessary duplication.

2. One of the more immediate projects that could be completed is to publicly identify

sensitive habitat areas through educational outreach. Since there has been very little

habitat information collected, habitat assessments need to be prioritized in the coming

years. Identifying habitat for all life stages and during all seasons will improve the

success of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon recovery efforts. Annual larval drift netting

assessments at lake sturgeon spawning areas are needed over a continuous 5-year period

at the Sturgeon and South Rivers. Drift netting may also be used to confirm additional

spawning areas within the Lake Nipissing watershed. Further efforts to gather

information on habitats at different life stages (especially at young-of-the-year and

juvenile stages) need to be prioritized (Auer & Baker 2002; Smith & King 2005). With

only 1% estimated to survive this critical life stage, other variables such as water

temperature and food availability need to be collected. It is recommended that

temperature data be collected when larval drift netting assessments are completed.

Temperatures can help determine year class strength, as well as, climate and hydrological

conditions; each an important factor to larval development (Nilo et al 1997; Smith &

King 2005).

3. Age data from the Lake Nipissing juvenile and (sub) adult populations (under the total

length of 1040 mm) needs to be resumed and carried out on an annual basis. Collecting

age data can be combined with tagging of lake sturgeon through mark-recapture

assessments or in partnership with commercial fishermen willing to tag incidental

catches. Accurate age data is needed to determine growth rates over per-longed periods

of time.

73

4. Standardized adult and juvenile mark-recapture methods for Lake Nipissing lake

sturgeon are needed to ensure a range of different sized lake sturgeon are captured and

biologically measured. Continuing to collect weight data would also compliment age and

length data for growth rates and condition (similar to the recommendation above). This

recommendation is included because weight data has often been missing or inconsistent.

Having larger lake sturgeon in a population may indicate a healthy population. Lake

Nipissing lake sturgeon data indicate that the size of lake sturgeon hasn’t really changed

since 1991.

5. Standardized adult mark-recapture assessments should extend throughout the full

duration of the spawning period. Sex determination can employ non-invasive holistic

approaches that do not endanger the fish. Identifying sex will also boost the success ratio

of spawning lake sturgeon. Continued adult mark-recapture assessments will help

monitor the abundance for future references. Mark-recapture assessments should be

completed at least five years within a ten-year period to allow population estimates to be

recalculated and compared. Standardizing the adult mark-recapture assessments for Lake

Nipissing would include three years consecutively for the marking event and two years

consecutively for the recapture event. It is also recommended that there be a two-year

rest period between marking and recapture events so that lake sturgeon are able to

recuperate from capture efforts.

6. The Sturgeon and South Rivers provide important migration habitat to spawning

areas. Under the Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recover Plan it is noted that in order for lake

sturgeon to recover future loss of habitat needs to be prevented (Alberta Lake Sturgeon

Recovery Team 2011). It is recommended to continue with efforts to protect migration to

spawning areas through shoreline permitting, especially at the Sturgeon River.

A sampling program should take into consideration all of the recommendations listed

above. This sampling program can be done in partnership between the MNRF, AOFRC,

NFN, DFN and other First Nation’s living within the Lake Nipissing watershed area.

Part of the initial objective for this MRP was to compile all available lake sturgeon data

and related information within the Lake Nipissing watershed. This was undertaken in

74

order to conduct analyses that would update the status of Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon.

The use of this information was meant to serve as a departure point in the present

development of a local scale management strategy. The Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recover

Plan is an excellent example of a management strategy (Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery

Team 2011). Resuming Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon assessments and data collection to

maximize the recovery efforts for this species is needed. Recommendations will help

with further monitoring and research efforts, as well as contribute to the development of

educational programs (Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team 2011).

4.5 Conclusion

The affirmation, protection and reclamation of Indigenous worldview and Traditional

Ecological Knowledge is of great importance to First Nations within the Lake Nipissing

Watershed and is required to help guide management strategy and recovery efforts

toward Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon.

Based on my analysis, Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon recovery status shows no

improvement. Available recorded data reveals that Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon have

shown decline in mean age, fewer age classes, size unchanged, dam entrapment, pollution

and destruction of habitat. All analyses to this point have indicated the population is

neither increasing nor decreasing. Lake Nipissing lake sturgeon continue to require the

protective status of ‘threatened’.

75

References

Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Team. 2011. Alberta Lake Sturgeon Recovery Plan,

2011-2016. Edmonton: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource

Development, Alberta Species at Risk Recover Plan, 22, 1-98. Web. 08 Nov

2014.

Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (AOFRC). 2016. About the Centre.

North Bay: Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre. Retrieved from:

http://www.aofrc.org/aofrc/anishinabekontario-fisher.html

Assembly of First Nations (AFN). 2010. An Analysis of the Species at Risk Act Policies

on the Conservation cycle. Ottawa: Assembly of First Nation, 1-21. Web. 18 Oct

2016. Retrieved from: https://www.afn.ca/uploads/ files/env/10-11-16_sara_

policies_aquatics.pdf.

Auer, N.A., & Baker, E.A. 2002. Duration and drift of larval lake sturgeon in the

Sturgeon River, Michigan. Berlin: Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 557-554.

Web. 17 Oct 2013.

Barth, C.C., Peake, S.J., Allen, P.J., & Anderson, W.G. 2009. Habitat utilization of

juvenile lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in a large Canadian river. Canada:

Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 18-26. Web. 3 April 2017.

Battiste, M. 2013. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit.

Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing Ltd, 23-33.

Bauman, J.M., Moerke, A., Greil, R., Gerig, B., Baker, E., & Chiotti, J. 2011. Population

status and demographics of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the St. Marys

River, from 2000 to 2007. Published online: Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37,

47-53. Web. 24 May 2014.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P., & Farr, R.A. 1997. Alternatives for the protection and restoration

of sturgeon and their habitat. Netherlands: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48,

407-417. Web. 13 June 2016.

Beamish, F.W.H., Jebbink, J., Rossiter, A., & Noakes, D.L.G. 1996. Growth strategy of

juvenile lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in a northern river. Guelph:

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53, 481-489. Web. 5 April

2017.

https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/env/10-11-16_sara_policies_aquatics.pdf


76

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological

Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Washington: Ecological Applications, 10,

No. 5, 1251-1262.

Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology (2nd

ed.). London & New York: Routledge, Tylor &

Francis Group.

Boreman, J. 1997. Sensitivity of North American sturgeon and paddlefish to fishing

mortality. Netherlands: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 399-405. Web. 31

March 2017.

Brown J, E. 1993. The Spiritual Legacy of the American Indian. New York: The

Crossroad Publishing Company.

Bruch, R.M., Campana, S.E., Davis-Foust, S.L., Hansen, M.J., & Janssen, J. 2009. Lake

Sturgeon Age Validation using Bomb Radiocarbon and Known-Age Fish.

Wisconsin: American Fisheries Society, 138, 361-372. Web. 1 April 2016.

Bruch, R.M. & Binkowski, F.P. 2002. Spawning behavior of lake sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens). Berlin: Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 570-579. Web. 25 May

2014.

Campana, S.E. 2001. Accuracy, precision and quality control in age determination,

including a review of the use and abuse of age validation methods. Nova Scotia:

Journal of Fish Biology, 59, 197-242. Web. 1 April 2016.

Canadian Constitution Act. 1982. Schedule B to the Canadian Act 1982, c. 11. Canada:

Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. Retrieved from: http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#h-38

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2016. Considering Aboriginal traditional

knowledge in environmental assessments conducted under the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act – Interim Principles. Canada: Government of

Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.ceaa-

acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4A795E76-1

Caroffino, D.C., Sutton, T., Elliott, R.F., & Donofrio, M.C. 2010. Predation on Early Life

Stages of Lake Sturgeon in Peshtigo River, Wisconsin. Wisconsin: American

Fisheries Society, 139, 1846-1856. Web. 25 May 2014.

77

Casey, F. 1967. Remember Sturgeon Falls Yesterday. Sturgeon Falls: Town of Sturgeon

Falls, 1-9.

Castellano, M.B. 2000. Updating Aboriginal Traditions of Knowledge in Dei, G.J.S.,

Goldin-Rosenberg, D.H. and Budd, L. (Ed). Indigenous Knowledge in Global

Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,

21-36.

Chalupnicki, M.A., Dittman, D.E. 2016. North American Sturgeon Otolith Morphology.

USA: American Society of ichthyologists and Herpetologist, 104 (1), 260-266.

Web. 22 August 2017.

Chiotti, J.A., Boase, J.C., Hondorp, D.W., & Briggs, A.S. 2016. Assigning Sex and

Reproductive Stage to Adult Lake Sturgeon using Ultrasonography and Common

Morphological Measurements. USA: North American Journal of Fisheries

Management, 36, 21-29. Web. 24 November 2016.

Chua, H., Yu, P.H.F., Sin, S.N., & Tan, K.N. 2000. Effect of Food: Microorganism Ratio

in Activated Sludge Foam Control. Hong Kong: Applied Biochemistry and

Biotechnology, 84 – 86, 1127-1135. Web. 22 June 2014.

Colombo, R.E., Wills, P.S., & Garvey, J.E. 2004. Use of Ultrasound Imaging to

Determine Sex of Shovelnose Sturgeon. Illinois: North American Journal of

Fisheries Management, 24, 322-326. Web. 31 March 2017.

Crossman, J.A., Scribner, K.T., Davis, C.A., Forsythe, P.S., & Baker, E.A. 2014.

Survival and Growth of Lake Sturgeon during Early Life Stages as a Function of

Rearing Environment. Michigan: Transaction of the American Fisheries Society,

143, 104-116. Web. 8 September 2016.

Daugherty, D.J., Sutton, T.M., & Elliott, R.F. 2008. Suitability Modeling of Lake

Sturgeon Habitat in Five Northern Lake Michigan Tributaries: Implications for

Population Rehabilitation. U.S.A: Restoration Ecology, 17, 245-257. Web. 3

April 2017.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2008. Recovery Potential Assessment of

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Watersheds (Designatable Unit 8) Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens) Populations. Canada: Department of Fisheries

and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science, Advisory Report

2008/04, 1-14. Web. 2 May 2015.

78

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2014. Pathways of Effects – Wastewater

management. Canada: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Retrieved

from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pathways-sequences/index-eng.html

Department of Labour. 1949. The Labour Gazette – Index Volume XLIX Number 7.

Ottawa: Department of Labour and the University of Toronto. Retrieved from:

https://archive.org/stream/labourgazette1949p2cana#page/1590/mode/2up.

Dick, T.A., Campbell, R.R., Mandrak, N.E., Cudmore, B., Reist, J.D., Rice, J., Bentzen,

P., & Dumont, P. 2006. COSEWEC Assessment and Update Status Report on the

Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in Canada. Ottawa: COSEWIC Secretariat –

Canadian Wildlife Service – Environment Canada, 1-107. Web. 23 November

2015.

DiVincenti Jr., L., Wyatt, J., Priest, H., Dittman, D., Klindt, R., Gordon, D., Preston, A.,

Smith, T., & Bowman, C. 2012. Reference intervals for select hematologic and

plasma biochemical analyses of wild Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) from

the St. Lawrence River in New York. New York: American Society for Veterinary

Clinical Pathology, 42 (1), 19-26. Web. 1 June 2014.

Duhamel, R. 1964. Copy of the Robinson Treaty made in the year 1850 with the Ojibewa

Indians of Lake Huron, conveying certain lands to the Crown. Ottawa: Queen’s

Printer and Controller of Stationery – Reprinted from the edition of 1939 by

Roger Duhamel, F.R.S.C., Cat. No. Ci 72-1264. Retrieved from:

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028984/1100100028994

Earle, S. 2002. Status of the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Alberta. Alberta:

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation

Association, Wildlife Status Report, 46, 1-30. Web. 18 October 2016.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 2007. Endangered Species Act S.O. 2007 C.6. Ontario:

Ontario Government. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06

Environment Canada. 2016. Lake Sturgeon – Committee on the Status of Endangered

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Canada: Government of Canada. Retrieved

from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=620309F4-1

79

Ferguson, M.M., & Duckworth, G.A. 1997. The status and distribution of lake sturgeon,

Acipenser fulvescens, in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and

Quebec: a genetic perspective. Netherlands: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48,

299-309. Web. 17 June 2014.

Fluvian, F (Photographer). 1965. Paul Benoit (center) of Sturgeon Falls hauled in a total

of 77 sturgeon on May 29, 1965. This harvest reaped a total of 1,827 pounds of

the prehistoric species, in addition to 125 pounds of caviar. Sturgeon caviar now

commands $125 per pound on the open market [photograph] in “The sturgeon is

in serious decline in Ontario”. Sturgeon Falls: Tribune, 3.

Fontaine, P., Phare, M., & Miltenberger, M. 2015. Collaborative Consent: A Nation-to-

Nation Path to Partnership with Indigenous Governments. Prepared for the

Ministry of Natural Resources. Canada: Ishkonigan, Inc, The Phare Law

Corporation and North Raven, 1-7. Web. 9 May 2016.

Gamlin, P. 2003. Transformation and Aboriginal Literacy. Toronto: Canadian Journal of

Native Education, 27, 16-22. Web. 1 December 2016.

Gerig, B., Moerke, A., Greil, R., & Koproski, S. 2011. Movement patterns and habitat

characteristics of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the St. Marys River,

Michigan, 2007-2008. USA: Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37, 54-60. Web. 4

June 2014.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2011. Recovery Strategy for Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) – Northwestern Ontario, Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence River and

Southern Hudson Bay-James Bay populations in Ontario. Ontario Recovery

Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Peterborough: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1 -77. Web. 24 May 2014.

Goulais, G. 2018. Benjamin Goulais and Roy Cockburn, circa [1946-1951][Image].

Sturgeon Falls.

Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN). 2015. GIS Data Sets – Great Lakes Region –

Basinwide Reference Layers [Shapefiles]. Michigan: Great Lakes Commission.

Retrieved from: http://www.glin.net/gis/data/refdata.html

Harness W.J.K., & Dymond J.R. 1961. The Lake Sturgeon: The History of its Fishery

and Problems of Conservation. Ontario: Department of Lands and Forests, 1-108.

80

Haxton, T.J., Findlay, C, S., and Threader, R.W. 2008. Predictive Value of a Lake

Sturgeon Habitat Suitability Model. Canada: North American Journal of Fisheries

Management, 28, 1373-1383. Web. 3 April 2017.

Heinrich, T., & Friday, M. 2014. A Population Assessment of the Lake of the Woods –

Rainy River Lake Sturgeon Population, 2014. Ontario: Ministry of Natural

Resources, 1-41. Web. 9 November 2017.

Hendry, G.S., Janhurst, S., & Horsnell. 1982. Some Effects of Pulp and Paper

Wastewater on Microbiological Water Quality of a River. Great Britain:

Pergamon Press Ltd. Water Resources, 16, 1291-1295. Web. 7 June 2014.

High, S. 2009. Mill History: Sturgeon Falls Mill Closing Project. Montreal: Concordia

University. Retrieved from Sturgeon Falls Mill Closing website. Retrieved from:

http://high.cohds.ca/sturgeon_falls/WebsiteSections/03Research/research.html.

Holzkamm, T.E., & Waisberg, L.G. 2004. Native American Utilization of Sturgeon in

Sturgeons and Paddlefish of North America. Edited by LeBreton, G.T.O.,

Beamish, F.W.H., and McKinley, R.S. Dordrecht. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers. 24.

Hubert, W.A., & Fabrizo, M.C. 2007. Chapter 7: Relative Abundance and Catch per Unit

Effort in Analysis and Interpretation of Freshwater Fisheries Data. Edited by

Christopher S. Guy and Michael L. Brown. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: American

Fisheries Society, 279-325.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). 2010. Treaties with Aboriginal People

in Canada. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.aadnc-

aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292

Isely, J.J., & Grabowske, T.B. 2007. Chapter 5: Age and Growth in Analysis and

Interpretation of Freshwater Fisheries Data. Edited by Christopher S. Guy and

Michael L. Brown. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: American Fisheries Society, 187-

188 and 202.

Jorgensen, C. 1976. The Commercial Fishery of Lake Nipissing. North Bay District: Lake

Nipissing Fisheries Unit (unpublished), 1-4.

Kaufman, S. 2007. Developing Recovery Indices for Lake Sturgeon in Lake Nipissing.

North Bay: Ministry of Natural Resources (unpublished), 1-7.

Kennedy, W. 1961. North Bay, Past, Present, Prospective. Canada: T.H. Best Printing

Company, Ltd. Web. 11 April 2015.

81

Kerr, S.J. Davison, M.J. & Funnell, E. 2010. A review of lake sturgeon habitat

requirements and strategies to protect and enhance sturgeon habitat.

Peterborough: Fisheries Policy Section, Biodiversity Branch. Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources, 1-59 + appendices. Web. 1 June 2014.

Kohl, J.G. 1860. Kitchi-Gami: Wanderings Round Lake Superior. London: Chapman

and Hall, 326-327.

Kuhlberg, M. 2015. In the Power of the Government: The Rise and Fall of Newsprint in

Ontario, 1894-1932. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press, 36.

Leatherdale, M. 2008. Nipissing from Brule to Booth (2nd

Edition). Vancouver: Trafford

Publishing.

Logan, W.E. 1857. Geological Survey of Canada, report of Progress for the years 1853-

54-55-56. Quebec: John Lovell, 113-114.

Loranger, A. June 29, 2011. Sturgeon seen struggling in shallow water after dam closure.

West Nipissing: Tribune.

Love, G.F. 1972. The Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) of Lake Nipissing – 1971

Study. North Bay District: Nipissing-Temagami Fisheries Management Unit, 1-

16.

Ma, H., Wang, B., & Wang, Y. 2007. Application of molybdenum and phosphate

modified kaolin in electrochemical treatment of paper mill wastewater. China:

Journal of Hazardous Materials, 145, 417-423. 22 June 2014.

Macenia, M.J., & Pereira, D.L. 2007. Chapter 4: Recruitment in Analysis and

Interpretation of Freshwater Fisheries Data. Edited by Christopher S. Guy and

Michael L. Brown. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: American Fisheries Society, 121.

Magnusson, G., Bisack, K.D., & Milliken, H.O. January 2012. The Cost-effectiveness of

Gear Research Relative to a Closure: Pound-nets and Sea Turtles as an Example.

Massachusetts: US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, 12-01, 1-32. Retrieved from:

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/

82

McDermid, J.L., Wozney, K.M., Kjartanson, S.L., & Wilson, C.C. 2011. Quantifying

historical, contemporary, and anthropogenic influences on the genetic structure

and diversity of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) populations in northern

Ontario. Berlin: Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 27, 12-23. Web. 14 June 2014.

McDougall, C.A., Blanchfield, P.J., Peake, S.J., & Anderson, W.G. 2013. Movement

Patterns and Size-Class Influence Entrainment Susceptibility of Lake Sturgeon in

a Small Hydroelectric Reservoir. Canada (online publish: American Fisheries

Society): Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 142, 1508-1521. Web.

8 June 2014.

McKee, S. 2003. 2003 Sturgeon River Lake Sturgeon Spawning Assessment Nipissing

First Nation. North Bay: Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre

(internally published), 1-8.

McLeod, B. 1946, July. Mayor Nets Nipissing ‘Black Gold’. Sturgeon Falls: West

Nipissing Public Library [Sturgeon River House Museum Collection]. Retrieved

from: http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299466/data?n=1

McMaster, M.E., Hewitt, M.L., & Parrott, J.L. 2006. A Decade of research on the

environmental impacts of pulp and paper mill effluents in Canada: Field Studies

and Mechanistic Research. Burlington: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental

Health, 9 (B), 319-339. Web. 21 June 2014.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). (n.d.). Harvest of Caviar and Sturgeon – Lake

Nipissing and Ottawa River, Showing Values and Lbs. of Sturgeon per lb. of

Caviar Ministry of Natural Resources (unpublished).

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). (n.d.). History of the Commercial Sturgeon

Fishery in Lake Nipissing. Ministry of Natural Resources (unpublished).

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 1991. Lake Nipissing Sturgeon Project 1991.

North Bay: Ministry of Natural Resources (unpublished).

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2005. The Regulatory Role of the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry’s Relations with Aboriginal

People. Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1-36.

83

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Deciding which species need

protection. Ontario: Queens Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from:

http://mnrsar.cat.webfeat.com/pages/MNR_SAR_COSSARO_EN.aspx

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Endangered Species Act:

The Basics - How the Act Works and How You Can Get Involved. Ontario:

Queens Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from:

http://mnrsar.cat.webfeat.com/pages/MNR_SAR_ENDNGR_SPC_TBSCS_EN.as

px

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Lake Nipissing Fisheries

Management Plan: Valuing a Diverse Fishery. North Bay: Ministry of Natural

Resources, 64-65.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2016. Fisheries Management Zone

11 [Shapefiles]. Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Morgan, G. 2002. Nipissing First Nation Lake Nipissing Lake Sturgeon Assessment

Project 2002. North Bay: Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre

(internally published), 1-9.

Mosseler, I. 1991. The sturgeon fish is in serious decline in Ontario. Sturgeon Falls:

Tribune, 3.

Murphy, B.R. & Willis, D.W. (Eds.). 1996. Fisheries techniques, 2nd

edition. Maryland:

American Fisheries Society, 693.

Musée Sturgeon River House Museum . n.d. Letter from the Lieutenant Governor of

Ontario 1951 [Image]. Toronto: Office of the Lieutenant Governor [West

Nipissing Public Library Collection]. Retrieved from:

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299492/image/911837?n=7

Musée Sturgeon River House Museum . 1947. Sturgeon Fishing 1947 [Image]. Sturgeon

Falls: Musée Sturgeon River House Museum Collection. Retrieved from:

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299488/data?n=8

Musée Sturgeon River House Museum . 5 June 1975. Bountiful harvest for Art Taillon

and Guy Courchesne of the Lake Nipissing Fishing Company [Image]. West

Nipissing: West Nipissing Public Library. Retrieved from:

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2305815/data

http://mnrsar.cat.webfeat.com/pages/MNR_SAR_COSSARO_EN.aspx

http://mnrsar.cat.webfeat.com/pages/MNR_SAR_ENDNGR_SPC_TBSCS_EN.aspx

http://mnrsar.cat.webfeat.com/pages/MNR_SAR_ENDNGR_SPC_TBSCS_EN.aspx

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299492/image/911837?n=7

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2305815/data

84

Musée Sturgeon River House Museum. 1951 & 1946. Mr. Roy Cockburn holding a lake

sturgeon on the left 1951 and Roy Cockburn (a.k.a. Caviar King) on the right in

1946 holding lake sturgeon caviar. West Nipissing: West Nipissing Public

Library. Retrieved from:

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299494/data?n=3 and


Musée Sturgeon River House Museum. 1947. Pound-net being set off of the Garden

Village shoreline by non-Indigenous commercial fishermen in 1947 left and lake

sturgeon harvested on the right. West Nipissing: West Nipissing Public Library.

Retrieved from: http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2299488/data?n=8

National Film Board of Canada (Production) & Farley, T (Director). 1951. Nipissing’s

Net Prophet [Eye Witness No.32]. Canada: National Film Board of Canada.

Natural Resources Canada. 2016. Aboriginal Lands of Canada series [Geobase]. Canada:

Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-

rncan/ess-sst/e1521542-1306-4ae6-886b-f888700fcbad.html

Nichols, J.S., Kennedy, G., Crawford, E., Allen, J., French III, J., Black, G., Blouin, M.,

Hickey, J., Chernyak, S., Haas, R., & Thomas, M. 2003. Assessment of Lake

Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) Spawning Efforts in the Lower St. Clair River,

Michigan. Michigan: Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29 (3), 383-391.

Nilo, P., Dumont, P., & Fortin, R. 1997. Climatic and hydrological determinants of year-

class strength of St. Lawrence River lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens).

Canada: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54 (4), 774-780.

Web. 23 April 2017.

Noakes, D.L.G., Beamish, F.W.H., & Rossiter, A. 1999. Conservation implications of

behavior and growth of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in northern

Ontario. Guelph: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 55, 135-144. Web. 1

September 2016.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2009. The lake sturgeon in Ontario.

Peterborough (Fish and Wildlife Branch): Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources,

1-48. + appendices. Web. 25 May 2013.



85

Ontario Rivers Alliance. 2016. West Nipissing Power Dam Upgrade – Sturgeon Falls.

Ontario: Ontario Rivers Alliance Website. Retrieved from:

http://www.ontarioriversalliance.ca/west-nipissing-power-dam-upgrade-sturgeon-

river/

Opp, J., & Walsh, J. 2010. Placing the Displaced worker: Narrating Place in

Deindustrializing Sturgeon Falls, Ontario in Placing Memory and Remembering

Place in Canada. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press, 159-186.

Pauly, D. 2008. Global fisheries: a brief review. Vancouver: Journal of Biological

Research, 9, 3-9. Web. 21 March 2017.

Peterson, D.L., Vecsei, P., & Jennings, C.A. 2007. Ecology and biology of the lake

sturgeon: a synthesis of current knowledge of a threatened North American

Acipenseridae. Georgia: Springer Science+Business Media, 59-76. Web. 25 May

2014.

Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. 2000. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Third

Alternative (Commentary). Kansas: Ecological Society of America, 10 (5), 133-

1340. Web. 27 November 2017.

Ponting, J.R. 1997. First Nations of Canada: Perspectives on Opportunity, Empowerment,

and Self-Determination. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 26.

Pope, K.L., Lochmann, E.L., & Young, M.K. 2010. Methods for Assessing Fish

Populations. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society, 1-28. Retrieved from:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff/73/

Pratt, T.C. 2008. Population Status and Threats of Lake Sturgeon in Designatable Unit 8

(Great Lakes / St. Lawrence River Watersheds). Sault Saint Marie: Department of

Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, 1-24.

Rheault, D. 2011. Solving the Indian Problem, Assimilation Laws, Practices and Indian

Residential Schools. Peterborough: University of Saskatchewan Library.

Retrieved from:

http://iportal.usask.ca/index.php?sid=680543222&id=34185&t=details

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish

populations. Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin, 191.

http://www.ontarioriversalliance.ca/west-nipissing-power-dam-upgrade-sturgeon-river/

http://www.ontarioriversalliance.ca/west-nipissing-power-dam-upgrade-sturgeon-river/

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff/73/

86

Rieman, B.E., & Allendorf, F.W. 2001. Effective Population Size and Genetic

Conservation Criteria for Bull Trout. USA: North American Journal of Fisheries

Management, 21, 756-764. Web. 18 October 2016.

Robinson, R.D., Carey, J.H., Solomon, K.R., Smith, I.R., Servos, M.R., & Munkittrick,

K.R. 1994. Survey of Receiving-Water Environmental Impacts Associated with

Discharges from Pulp Mills. 1. Mill Characteristics, Receiving-Water Chemical

Profiles and Lab Toxicity Tests. USA: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,

13 (7), 1075-1088. Web. 21 June 2014.

Rousseaux, C.G., Branchaud, A., & Spear, P.A. 1995. Evaluation of Liver

Histopathology and Erod Activity in St. Lawrence Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser

fulvescens) in Comparison with a Reference Population. USA: Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry, 14 (5), 843-849. Web. 21 June 2014.

Roussow, G. 1957. Some Considerations Concerning Sturgeon Spawning Periodicity.

Quebec: Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, v.14, 553-572. Web. 25

January 2016.

Rowe, R. 2009. Progress Report: Population and Habitat Status for Lake Sturgeon in

Lake Nipissing. Sturgeon Falls: Nipissing First Nation (unpublished), 1-21.

Scott, W.B, & Crossman, E.J. 1998. Lake Sturgeon in Freshwater Fishes of Canada.

Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 82-89.

Secretariat of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC). November 2015. COSEWIC Assessment Process, Categories and

Guidelines. Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Retrieved from:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=ED199D3B-1


(COSEWIC). 2016. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC) assessment process and criteria - Call for Aboriginal Traditional

Knowledge. Canada: Environment Canada. Retrieved from:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/assessment_process_e.cfm.

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/assessment_process_e.cfm

87


(COSEWIC). 2017. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC) Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) Process and Protocols.

Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Retrieved from:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=32BB4F57-1#Theeightsteps

Seyler, J. 2001. Lake Sturgeon Assessment: Lake Nipissing 2001. North Bay:

Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (internal publication), 1-12.

Slipke, J.W., & Maceina, M.J. 2014. Fishery Analysis and Modeling Simulator (FAMS)

[Computer software]. Version 1.64. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries

Society.

Smith, K. M, & King, D. K. 2005. Dynamics and extent of larval lake sturgeon Acipenser

fulvescens drift in the Upper Black River, Michigan. Michigan: Journal of

Applied Ichthyology, 161-168. Web. 23 April 2017.

Smith, K. M., & King, D. K. 2005. Movement and Habitat Use of Yearling and Juvenile

Lake Sturgeon in Black Lake, Michigan. Michigan: Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society, 1159-1172. Web. 23 April 2017.

Species at Risk Act (SARA). 2002. Species at Risk Act S.C. 2002, c. 29. Canada:

Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved from: http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/

Species at Risk Act in Ontario List. 2016. Endangered Species Act, 2007 - Ontario

Regulation 230/08 - Species at Risk Act in Ontario List. Ontario: Ontario

Government. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230

Thomas, M.V., & Haas, R.C. 2002. Abundance, age structure, and spatial distribution of

lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in the St Clair System. Michigan: Journal of

Applied Ichthyology, 18, 495-501. Web. 23 November 2017.

Thomas, MV., & Haas, R.C. 2004. Abundance, Age Structure, and Spatial Distribution of

Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens in the St. Clair System Fisheries Research

Report 2076. Michigan: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries

Division, 1-25.

88

Threader, R., Pope, R.J., & Schaap, P.R.H. 1998. Development of a Habitat Suitability

Index Model for Lake Sturgeon Report H-07015.01—0012. Ontario: Ontario

Hydro, 1-47.

Tremblay, K. 2012. Mississagi River Lake Sturgeon Spawning Assessment 2011 and

2012: Mississauga First Nation. North Bay: Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries

Resource Centre (unpublished), 1-22.

Trested, D.G., & Isely, J.J. 2011. Age, growth, mortality, and abundance of lake sturgeon

in the Grasse River, New York, USA. Berlin: Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 27,

13-19. Web. 17 September 2015.

United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). 2016. The

United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. Canada: United

Nations. Web. 10 May 2016.

Union of Ontario Indians (UOI). 2016. Robinson – Huron Treaty Rights 1850 and Today.

North Bay: Union of Ontario Indians, 1-13. Retrieved from:

http://www.anishinabek.ca/education-resources/gdoo-sastamoo-kii-mi/

Vecsei, P., Litvak, M. K., Noakes, D.L.G., Rien, T., & Hochleithner, M. 2003. A

noninvasive technique for determining sex of live adult North American

sturgeons. Netherlands: Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68, 333-338. Web. 20

January 2017.

Waples, R.S., Nammack, M., Cochrane, J.F., & Hutchings, J.A. 2013. A Tale of Two

Acts: Endangered Species Listing Practices in Canada and the United States.

California: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 63 (9), 723-734. Web. 15

June 2014.

Welsh, A.B., Elliott, R.F., Scribner, K.T., Quinlan, H.R., Baker, E.A., Eggold, B.T.,

Holtgren, J.M., Krueger, C.C., & May, B. 2010. Genetic Guidelines for the

Stocking of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the Great Lakes Basin. MI:

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1-56.

West Nipissing Public Library Collection (WNPLC). n.d. The History of the Town of

Sturgeon Falls and it’s Masonic Lodge. West Nipissing: West Nipissing Public

Library. Retrieved from:


89

West Nipissing Public Library Collection (WNPLC). n.d. Remember Sturgeon Falls

Yesterday. West Nipissing: West Nipissing Public Library. Retrieved from:

http://images.ourontario.ca/WestNipissing/2324286/page/11?n=

White, T., Paul, K., & Quick, G. 2015. Sturgeon Species. UK: Sturgeon Web. Retrieved

from: http://www.sturgeon-web.co.uk/sturgeon-species

Young, J.K., & Love, G.F. 1971. The Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) of Lake

Nipissing - A Preliminary Report. In Resource Management Report. Fish and

Wildlife Branch: Department of Lands and Forests, 40-60.

90

Appendices

Appendix A: Copy of AFN summarized recommendations for COSEWIC

Assembly of First Nation “An Analysis of the Species at Risk Act Policies on the

Conservation Cycle” Retrieved from: https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/env/10-11-

16_sara_ policies_aquatics.pdf (November 2010).

1. That the SARA be amended to limit the use of ministerial discretionary powers to

prevent further erosions of First Nation reserve lands and infringements of

aboriginal and treaty rights.

2. SARA be amended to establish a formal process whereby First Nations can

provide advice and put forth recommendations on cost effective means to reduce

infringement of First Nations right and interests as a result of a SARA listing and

protection of critical habitat or the failure to invoke SARA protections.

3. First Nations are given administrative authority under SARA to administer SARA

on reserve lands established under treaty or the Indian Act.

4. SARA is exempt from First Nations reserves especially where First Nations create

their own specific species at risk legislation, policies and or by-laws to apply on

reserve lands.

5. First Nations lands should be exempt from SARA’s applications.

6. The appointment of NACOSAR members, under s. 8.1, must include specific

recognition of Aboriginal peoples as identified in s.35 (2) of the Constitution of

Canada. Selection must be made from “appropriate Aboriginal organizations”

legitimately able to prove the claim of representation of a majority of those who

hold the inherent collective rights of the Aboriginal Peoples’ of Canada.

Therefore section 8.1 of SARA must be amended to serve in the best interests of

Aboriginal Peoples’ of Canada. It is recommended that S. 8.1 of SARA be

amended to read:

“The Minister shall establish the National Aboriginal Council on Species at

Risk, consisting of six representatives of the aboriginal peoples as identified

in s.35 (2) of the Constitution Act of Canada. These members shall be

selected by the Minister based upon recommendations from the Assembly of

First Nations (AFN) the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the Métis National

Council (MNC).”

7. The term “aboriginal organizations” is clearly defined within the Act and is

limited to legitimate Aboriginal rights holders and national organizations.



91

8. The AFN recommends that SARA be amended to include explicit recognition and

involvement of First Nations’ governments in the amendment and implementation

of legislation and its regulations.

9. SARA be amended to include defining wildlife management boards that are

Aboriginal specific to land claims and the details of their involvement should be

clarified.

10. The preamble to the Act should be amended to state that “the traditional

knowledge of the aboriginal peoples in Canada shall be considered in accordance

to domestic and international protocols, ATK shall be afforded adequate

protection to ensure knowledge is not part of the public domain and intellectual

property rights are protected...”

11. SARA be amended to provide legislative protections for the use of aboriginal

traditional knowledge with explicit clauses that deem any knowledge supplied by

First Nation communities are public domain.

12. The creation of a new legal regime developed with First Nations that provides

adequate protections and remedies for First Nations over their traditional

knowledge. Civil and Criminal remedies should be part of this regime, with

mandatory minimal prison sentences for those person, researchers and professors

who misuse, misappropriate, patent and steal First Nation traditional knowledge.

13. In order to carry out this important work it is important that section. 9 (1) be

amended as follows adding section 9.1(a):

9(1) A Minister may, after consultation with the other two competent

Ministers establish one or more First Nation committees to advise the

Minister on the administration of this Act.

9.a) The Minister shall provide the committee or committees with any

facilities and supplies that, in his or her opinion, are necessary to carry out

its functions.

9(2) The Minister my, after consultation with the other two Ministers and the

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, establish one or more

First Nation committees to advise the Council on matters related to the

Council’s role.

14. Section 13 be amended to include First Nations and Aboriginal Organizations and

the federal government enter into section 13 funding agreements directly with

First Nations and or Aboriginal organizations.

92

Appendix B: Copy of the Robinson Treaty 1850 PDF

100

Appendix C: Larval Drift Netting Materials and Methods

Larval drift netting is explained in “Duration and drift of larval lake sturgeon in the

Sturgeon River, Michigan” (Auer & Baker 2002).

Materials

D-frame nets Flash lights

Rope Head lamps

Anchors Container

Floats Baster

Clip board Measuring device/board

Sampling forms Pencils

Method

1. The “D-frame nets are deployed using a triple point bridle attached to the net” and

then attached to an anchor and extra ropes.

2. The D-framed drift nets if set properly rest at the bottom of the river. Auer and

Baker reported that drift nets were set at dusk and were checked every 2 to 3

hours.

3. When nets were lifted, the contents of the cod-ends were put into a container and

then examined using flash lights and head lamps to look for larval lake sturgeon,

young sturgeon were then removed from the container with a baster and measured

and released.

101

Appendix D: Adult Mark-Recapture Materials and Methods

Materials

Stretched mesh multifilament gill nets Scales (5 kg, 10 kg & >50 kg)

Rope Sling (for large sturgeon)

Anchors Large knives

Floats Small saw

PIT tags Measuring board

Syringe for PIT tag Clip board

PIT tag reader Sturgeon netting forms

GPS unit Pencils

Dip net

Method

Lake sturgeon were captured in 20.3 cm, 22.9 cm and 25.4 cm (8, 9 and 10 inch)

stretched mesh, multifilament nylon gill nets for a duration of 60 minutes at a 45 degree

angle downstream of known spawning site within Lake Nipissing (Rowe 2009). Gill nets

were approximately 100 feet in length.

1. Captured lake sturgeon are removed from gill nets and biologically sampled.

Biological data includes: weight, fork and total lengths and fin section for ageing

(ageing methodology described below). Make sure scale for weighting sturgeon is

calibrated.

2. Captured lake sturgeon are then implanted with a passive integrated transponder

(PIT) tag behind the second scute (boney plates located on top of sturgeon). Lake

sturgeon are scanned before-hand to see if they were recaptures.

3. Gender is determined if possible.

4. All lake sturgeon are live released.

5. Microsoft Excel was used to describe and graph the biological characteristics of the

adult lake sturgeon population.

102

Depths, UTM coordinates, surface water temperatures, cloud cover, precipitation were

are recorded as well when lifting the nets.

103

Appendix E: Juvenile Mark-Recapture Materials and Methods

Between May and November of each year juvenile lake sturgeon are incidentally

captured in 8.9cm (31/2

inch) and 9.5cm (33/4

inch) mesh gill nets by commercial

fishermen from Nipissing First Nation. The juvenile lake sturgeon assessments are

altered methods.

Materials

Measuring board PIT tags and syringe

Scales (5 kg and 10 kg) PIT tag reader

Clip board Fillet knives

Sampling forms Pencils

Method

1. Commercial fishermen contact the Nipissing Natural Resource Department so that

biological information (fork length and total length and a fin section for aging)

can be taken. Aging required the removal of a one inch section from the base of

the pectoral fin ray.

2. A PIT tag is then implanted behind the second scute of juvenile lake sturgeon

400mm and over. Juvenile sturgeon with total lengths between 300mm and

400mm were PIT tagged behind the 4th scute.

3. All sturgeon were live released.

4. Commercial fishermen were paid $20 for each live and healthy sturgeon as an

incentive to contributing to the project.

5. Microsoft Excel was used to describe and graph the biological characteristics of

the juvenile lake sturgeon population.

104

Appendix F: Length Frequency Distributions

Figure 28: Length-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the South

River (1992-1995); A) 1992 mean total length at 1359 mm ± 182 (S.D), B) 1993 mean

total length at 1389 mm ± 191.7 (S.D), C) 1994 mean total length at 1322 mm ± 119.9

(S.D), D) 1995 mean total length at 1300 mm ± 147.3 (S.D).

105


River (2001-2005); A) 2001 mean total length at 1392 mm ± 130.9 (S.D), B) 2002

mean total length at 1395 mm ± 156.1 (S.D), C) 2003 mean total length at 1390 mm ±

123.4 (S.D), D) 2004 mean total length at 1359 mm ± 136.5 (S.D), E) 2005 mean total

length at 1451 mm ± 179.1 (S.D).

106


River (2008-2009); A) 2008 mean total length at 1296 mm ± 142.5 (S.D), B) 2009

mean total length at 1328 mm ± 118.2 (S.D).

Figure 31: Length-frequency distribution for adult lake sturgeon from the

Sturgeon River (1991-1994); A) 1991 mean total length at 1434 mm ± 217.2 (S.D), B)

1992 mean total length at 1371 mm ± 226.8 (S.D), C) 1993 mean total length at

1332mm ± 190.4 (S.D), D) 1994 mean total length at 1366 mm ± 174.6 (S.D).

107



2002 mean total length at 1324 mm ± 169.6 (S.D), C) 2003 mean total length at 1280

mm ± 100.3 (S.D).

108



2007 mean total length at 1327 mm ± 137.7 (S.D), C) 2008 mean total length at 1317

± 137 (S.D).



2012 mean total length at 1349 mm ± 171.2 (S.D).

109

Figure 35: Length-frequency distribution for juvenile lake sturgeon from Lake

Nipissing (2008-2012); A) 2008 mean total length at 735 mm ± 118 .3 (S.D), B) 2009

mean total length at 743 mm ± 165.5 (S.D), C) 2010 mean total length at 726 mm ±

210.7 (S.D), D) 2011 mean total length at 645 mm ± 192.7 (S.D), E) 2012 mean total

length at 663 mm ± 208.9 (S.D).

110

Appendix G: Length-Weight Relationships

Figure 36: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from the South

River (1992-1995); A) 1992 (R2 = 0.889), B) 1993 (R

2 = 0.8257), C) 1994 (R

2 =

0.7994), D) 1995 (R2 = 0.8391).

111


River (2001-2005); A) 2001 (R2 = 0.8534), B) 2002 (R

2 = 0.8567), C) 2003 (R

2 =

0.8373), D) 2004 (R2 = 0.7435), E) 2005 (R

2 = 0.9219).

112


River (2008-2009); A) 2008 (R2 = 0.7846), B) 2009 (R

2 = 0.7423).

Figure 39: Length-weight relationship for adult lake sturgeon from the Sturgeon

River (1991-1994); A) 1991 (R2 = 0.8436), B) 1992 (R

2 = 0.8745), C) 1993 (R

2 =

0.9854), D) 1994 (R2 = 0.9542).

113


River (2001-2003); A) 2001 (R2 = 0.7123), B) 2002 (R

2 = 0.8995), C) 2003 (R

2 =

0.8034).


River (2006-2007); A) 2006 (R2 = 0.9603), B) 2007 (R

2 = 0.8318).

114


River (2011-2012); A) 2011 (R2 = 0.906), B) 2012 (R

2 = 0.9035).

115

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Nikki Commanda

Post-Secondary Trent University

Education and Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Degrees: 2006-2009

Environmental & Resource Studies and Indigenous Studies

Sir Sanford Fleming College

Lindsay, Ontario, Canada

2003-2004

Fish & Wildlife Technologist

Sir Sanford Fleming College

Lindsay, Ontario, Canada

2001-2003

Fish & Wildlife Technician

Related Work Biologist

Experience Nipissing First Nation

Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, Canada

2011–Present

Fisheries Biologist Intern

Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre

North Bay, Ontario, Canada

2009-2011

Project Fisheries Biologist

Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre

North Bay, Ontario, Canada

2008

LAKE STURGEON (ACIPENSER FULVESCENS) MANAGEMENT … · Figure 14: Save the Sturgeon logo (Reprinted...

Documents

Transcript of LAKE STURGEON (ACIPENSER FULVESCENS) MANAGEMENT … · Figure 14: Save the Sturgeon logo (Reprinted...