Twenty-eight dead trout have caused quite a stir. Of course, it’s not really the number of fish killed by gill nets in Trefoil Lake that has fishing guides and conservationists writing in to the Fitzhugh. Rather, the concern seems to be that Parks Canada is responsible for the deaths of the brook trout (and one bull trout) that had been illegally stocked in the naturally fishless lake.

Aquatic Specialist Ward Hughson has come in for some direct criticism from several of those who submitted letters. They assert that Parks attempted to cover up their actions at Trefoil and were out of order to be using the gill nets in a effort to do their investigation.

This is unreasonable. Hughson made it plain to the Fitzhugh that he first attempted to make direct observations of fish in the lake, and when none were evident, resorted to using nets.

If, as he claims, the gill nets are standard equipment for investigations of this nature, there should be no complaint. After all, Hughson could not have been expected to consult with the public or “stakeholders” before gathering any information. In order to determine if there were fish in Trefoil, and whether or not they were reproducing independently, Hughson had to use the techniques he employed. The 28 fish that died are an unfortunate side effect of trying to enforce a policy that would see fishless lakes remain that way, and would protect native species at the expense of non-native varieties like brook trout.

Where the angry letter writers have a point is in saying that Parks was less than forthcoming in informing the public about their activities. Indeed, without the indignant intervention of one local business owner, we have some doubt that the Trefoil Lake investigation would have ever been reported. This isn’t good.

Parks Canada has shown a desire and willingness to change the way it goes about making decisions and involving the public. Rather than bringing things forward with conclusions already drawn up, the agency has promised a more collaborative approach. See for example the Jasper Trails Project or the Caribou Recovery Team.

However, there is much to suggest that Parks still has more to do before it grasps the importance of being fully forthright and inclusive from the word go. The existence of an internal document that proposed a management decision for a portion of Trail 7 is evidence of this, as is informing the general public after, rather than before, an intrusive biological investigation is undertaken at a lake in the park.

The good news is that Parks officials here in Jasper recognize the need for good communication and a proper commitment to consultation with all manner of people that have an interest in their decisions. We can only hope that the situation continues to improve in the months and years ahead.