It will come as no surprise that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation floating around on the World Wide Web. Many of us might think that most of it has its origins in belief systems and that the misinformation is simply a case that someone else’s beliefs are obviously the misguided ones. Surely, it would be rare to discover mistakes on matters of geographic fact. And yet, we live in a world of copyists. Few people check things; they merely copy from one source to the next. Once made, a mistake can live forever.
I was reminded of this recently when someone told me that Kootenay Lake (the Main Lake) was 90 miles long. Now, that corresponds to about 145 kilometres, some 40% larger than the value that one obtains from a map. Elsewhere on this website, I give a length of 104 kilometres on a straight line, and about 107 kilometers following the bends of the Lake’s centre line. My distance was simply scaled from a map, something particularly easy to do these days using Google Earth. They correspond to between 64 and 67 miles, values that nicely match some older books and pamphlets that present the Lake as nearly 70 miles long.
But, 90 miles? This and other unreasonably large numbers raise a couple of questions: Who thinks the Lake is so much longer than it is? Why do they think this?
Who believes in a longer Lake?
The answer to this question is easily obtained. On a search engine just type in: Kootenay Lake 90 miles, or pick some similar value. The following links will open search results in a new window or tab: Kootenay Lake 90 miles Kootenay Lake 100 miles (but, as these will be live searches, the lists may change from one day to the next).
To my eye, the search results show a pattern among those who claim the Lake is longer than it is. They seem to be in the business of promoting local commerce: tourism, accommodations, fishing, real-estate development, marina, etc. For these websites, the Lake is a secondary feature merely used to market their product. (One wonders if the hyperbole is accidental or is a purposeful approach to marketing.)
Why do they think the Lake is so long?
The answer to this is speculative, but plausible. Of course, most of the websites found above don’t offer an independent opinion on the matter. Rather, they merely copied from somewhere else. This despite how easy it would have been to obtain a reasonable number from a map. Yet, how did these oversized numbers get generated in the first place?
A few years ago, when I encountered such inflated values, I guessed that they dated back to a time when the spring freshet flooded some of the Creston flats (at the south end of the Lake). Before the construction of the dykes in the 1930s, what is now farmland and a few small lakes, could seasonally become a part of the Main Lake. Two things now argue against my initial guess: early references I have seen give the nearly 70-mile value; 90 miles measured from the north end of the Lake would take one well into the U.S., something never mentioned. If a variable length that results from seasonal flooding isn’t enough to give the really big numbers, what does?
I believe the explanation is to be found with Duncan Lake. This body of water lies just north of Kootenay Lake. Look at any map of the region (the one below is a schoolhouse map from 1908). Now, imagine that you have never been here, but have the job of quickly producing a number for an almanac. A hurried glance at a map might conflate these separate lakes. Indeed, a straight line from the north end of Duncan Lake to the south end of Kootenay Lake gives a distance of almost exactly 90 miles, and if you take a path that follows the valley and maybe includes Duck Lake in the south, the figure becomes closer to 100 miles.
Incompetence
So, my guess is that these oversized numbers arose from a functionary who carelessly conflated multiple lakes. What is particularly fascinating is that the hyperbolic values thus produced have now attained lives of their own on websites promoting local commerce.
This is portion of a 1908 schoolhouse map in my hallway. The alignment of lakes makes it likely that the oversized numbers for Kootenay Lake resulted from someone conflating adjacent lakes. Alas, the silliness lives on.
A very interesting article! I too have run into this and began to wonder just what the proper size was – thank you clearing that up!
I will reveal myself as the one who asked Alistair to read from my book in progress, A River Captured, an historical account of the upper Columbia Basin in Canada. I was delighted to find Alistair’s curiosity stimulated by my use of the 90 mile long statistic. The result is here for all to read. Thank you Alistair for your clarification!
Hello everyone, Well, I have in front of me: Kootenay Lake and River, Chart 3050, 1996 Edition, published by the Canadian Hydrographic Sevices, Fisheries and Ocean. Quote: Kootenay Lake, 66 miles long in a North/South direction and 2.5 miles wide… etc (page 3). I would think we can beleive this information. The original data is well before Harper, I beleive…!
Thanks for a very interesting site.
Bernard, what a nice insight.
I had copies of that hydrological survey at my elbow as I wrote the posting, and did not think to consult it. That publication is based upon a big survey and depth measurements done in 1946 and 1947. There are still survey posts from it to be found around the edge of the lake, one is shown in this picture. I am pleased that the length agrees with my own map measurements, but it just underscores how silly the commonly asserted value of 90 miles is.
What a fascinating post and discussion, Alistair and others. As the saying goes, you learn something new everyday – this was particularly enjoyable, especially the use of historical documents referenced by Alistair and Bernard. Many thanks!
I have heard Kootenay Lake is the third largest lake In BC. Which is number one and number two
Irv, the answer to this depends upon how the question is asked. Williston Lake is by far the largest lake (by area) at about 1760 km2, but then it was created in 1968 by the Bennett Dam. So, it isn’t a natural lake. Do we care? That depends on the intent of the questioner. Then there is Atlin Lake at about 790 km2 which can be considered to be BC’s largest natural lake. But, a tiny portion of Atlin is in the Yukon so it is not entirely in BC. If the intent was to ask the size of lakes entirely in the Province, then we have an excuse to drop Atlin. Babine Lake is about 480 km2 and is entirely within the Province. It beats out Kootenay Lake at about 410 km2.
So, Kootenay Lake is the fourth largest lake, but the third largest natural lake, but the second largest natural lake entirely within the Province. Yet, here is a nice statistic: it is the largest lake in the southern half of the Province.
Interesting to note the trail up Hamill creek (todays Earl Grey pass trail) being met by another from a second drainage to the north. Would this have been a trail up Glacier creek, previously the southern extent of Duncan lake? It would have been a spectacular though rugged route crossing from Glacier creek to Hamill!