Letters_sept22

Jeff Green | Sep 22, 2005

Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy

Letters

. | Navigate | .

ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims

Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright

Letters to the Editor

Re:Arden faces life with a high-risk sex offender

So, little Arden has it’s own child molester. But yeah, he didn’t learn that watching jugglers and rope spinners and acrobats and dancing bears.

Anyway, nothing is lower than a child molester, and equally bad if the victim is boy OR girl. Of course, the world would be a much nicer place without pimps and rapists too, but they don’t generally even make the papers.

Not likely, but wouldn’t it be nice if he was innocent or managed to reform?

Meantime, a Neighbourhood Watch in every town should be the rule, not the exception.

- Carmel Gowan

$1,242.00 per yr Tax increase for my old home in Sydenham (or, My Dream Home Has Nightmares)

For over 20 years, I have always liked and wanted the home I bought in the fall of 2004. It's just on the outskirts of Sydenham. While I have a RR#1 address, I am not past the fire hall, which will soon have running water and the pipe to them runs in front of my house.

I was very disappointed with the South Frontenac Council at the public meeting in July at the Loughborough Public school. Mayor Bill Lake as much as told us that we were going to be forced by new bylaws, if need be, to have to hook up to this water system and that we will also be forced to pay $48 per month or $576 per year added to my taxes, even if we don't use a drop. To me that means $5,300 for the pipe that passes in front of my house and about $4,000 to have it brought into my house.

At this public meeting over 100 local people signed in. The biggest objection was to have to hook up to the system. The Mayor said that the majority would rule but I think he forgot to tell us the majority of the councillors would rule. I was very disappointed with the whole fiasco.

I have since found out that because we have 1,400 students here between the public and high school who don't have safe drinking water, we the 272 households of Sydenham have to pay for the water. I have also learned that normally the cost would be split up amongst the South Frontenac Rate payers, but for some reason the Mayor has said that the water problem in Sydenham was a problem before amalgamation and we should therefore have to pay for it. 20 years ago the government offered to pay for water and sewer for Sydenham but the residents turned it down. Instead, the government paid for some new wells and in home water treatment equipment, noting that we were too small a community to force water on us, but not if you add the water safety for over 1,400 children attending the two local schools.

My personal cost for water for the school kids will exceed $9,000. If we were to do what's right and share it among the S.F. ratepayers, it would work out to about a $180 one time fee. Then my cost would drop to around $4,000. For some Sydenham residents, they will have to sell their house, and more will have a second mortgage they can never pay off until the end of the 15-year term at a cost of $74 per year per thousand borrowed ($666 per year to me as well as the $576 totals over $1,242 tax increase on top of the already inflated $1,900 that I already pay). If they tried to sell, the new owner would have to assume the debt.

We should do something about this now. What will happen when they want to make improvements in your area? We need a Rate Payers association from every area of SF and beyond to stand up for the individuals that have already been pushed aside for the interests of a few.

-Don Wiskin

Re: Walleye Stocking

I’ve read with great interest your article regarding Bob’s Lake Walleye. As a seasonal resident and avid Walleye fisherman, I know I am not alone in my concern regarding the present efforts to sustain the population.

Despite my greatest respect for all the efforts made by volunteers to rehabilitate creeks, I cannot abide by this as a long-term solution to supporting this particular fish population without additional intervention--particularly stocking. I support this with the following points:

1.) Creeks rehabilitated can and will improve spawning, but three small creeks on a water system as large as Bob’s Lake is not enough. Furthermore, creeks are habitat that is constantly transforming. Every year brings a new set of weather events that affect creek beds, temperatures, flows, and subsequent success rates. Additionally, one must remember eighteen vertical feet of the original creek mouths are now under water (due to the Bolingbroke dam) and the new elevated lake levels, along with the recovering beaver population, have created new warmer wetlands that feed these streams in spring. All of these points can affect a complete year class and for the most part cannot be controlled.

2.) Despite the efforts to protect nesting Bass and the sustained stocking of Lake Trout, the overwhelming majority of recreational fisherman on Bob’s Lake target Walleye. Walleye are not being put back into the lake because “they just taste too good”. Walleye are the one species consistently harvested from the lake.

Walleye have been stocked in Bob’s Lake since 1922. It was initiated then to offset the affects of the higher water levels on spawning areas. Historical photos and anecdotal stories suggest incomparable fishing success during those years, compared to today and more recent years. Contrary to your article, private stocking did take place via the Can-Am fishing club in 1997, 1998 and 1999 as well as 1,000,000 fry donated privately in the late 90’s. It is also my understanding that eggs and fry were put into the rehabilitated streams in 2004.

As a proponent of stocking Walleye, I also have to dispute the comment in the article pertaining to the MNR’s position. In Bob’s Lake stocking “over” existing population is a lost cause due to the past stocking history. The brood stock used in the past as well as what is left with the native fish are all linked genetically through the Tay River / Great Lakes Watershed. In fact, an argument could be made that the Bolingbroke dam broke that historical link, isolating and perhaps denigrating the genetic enrichment of Bob’s Lake Walleye. Further to this point, available knowledge indicates that the majority of Walleye sampled in 1992 by the provincial research station in Glenora were stocked fish put in from 1987 to 1991.

I offer three more points in response to this article:

1. Bob’s Lake is a different lake since human’s intervention. It is now eighteen feet deeper, fished more heavily, and most likely warmer.

2. The position of the Greater Bob’s Lake and Crow’s Lake association does not reflect a balanced view of its membership. Its own survey indicated that 79% of respondents consider fishing and the fishery a high priority. I dare say the vast majority of the 79% want Walleye stocked.

3. There are ways to properly prepare young Walleye to insure survivability and an appropriate degree of “wildness”, as well as the means to address any genetic issues.

Because I am not alone with this opinion a group of residents have joined together to apply for a stocking permit to address this issue. We certainly do not want to discourage any other efforts being made but at the end of the day all arguments against stocking become moot if the existing population sinks below critical levels for subsistence.

I invite anyone interested in our efforts to contact me, Donald Kohart at 1-800-955-4427 or via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..