I haven't invested much in this case for a while.
IMO SK was never going to be found in the lake. If you're lost, even in darkness, who walks into the depths of a lake? (Getting pulled under is something else). SK knew there was a lake somewhere there, because his tent was right near it. If he took a step and water got deep, you'd think he'd turn right around, knowing he'd got into the lake and it would go deeper from there. He'd not be getting sucked under in the depths of a lake.
Undoubtedly, there are plenty of animal bones in the lake. It's in a caribou migratory route, and SK and his buddy threw their kill into it, so wild as well as human-introduced.
Attacking SAR for a year and then expecting them to rush to a likely non-find-site over a day's drive from the nearest big town and bazillion dollar helicopter rides that are needed as ambulances....well, how does that work?
Assumptions ran amok in this case, but I can speak to these... Not rarely, the wilderness claims a tourist; they are never seen again. There's a common assumption that everyone will be found. Minimizing your risk of being that person is possible, but the risk never entirely goes away. People go missing every year and are never found. Native Alaskans know this, because that's what life presents them with. Perhaps it's easy to make the mistake of assuming that if someone is going into the wilderness for recreation, nothing could possibly go wrong, because it's a pleasure-place. Problem is, it's not Disney World; it's a place that belongs to a force that doesn't give a rip about humans. Native Alaskans IMO don't have a lot of time for people (generally 48-staters) who make the assumption that all the wilderness is Disney-tundra-world, because it's a poor one, and not because they're determined to be unhelpful.