Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

298 FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The great economic value of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the widespread
demand for it by the general public combine-to make conservation of this species
a matter of primary importance. Accordingly, conservation officials were gravely disturbed
by the numerous reports and complaints of commercial fishermen in 1928, 1929,
and 1930 concerning the operation of a new type of gear—the deep trap net—in the
waters of Lake' Huron off Alpena, Mich. These nets, the complainants contended,
took whitefish literally by the tons, threatening the immediate extinction of the commercial
stock. They held further that the deep trap net not only took legal-sized whitefish
in unreasonable quantities but that it was also highly destructive 'to immature fish.
Gill-net fishermen stated that they were forced to suspend operations in areas in
which deep trap nets were fished because of the thousands of rotting, undersized whitefish
that drifted into their nets. These fish, they believed, had been destroyed in the
deep-trap-net fishery. They charged specifically that young whitefish were killed by
confinement in deep trap nets, by gilling in the trap-net meshes, by the rapid change
of pressure when the nets were lifted, and by excessive and rough handling in the sorting
of the catch. They charged further that deep-trap-net fishermen habitually
dumped the dead, undersized whitefish overboard, and thus ruined the best whitefish
grounds by polluting the bottom and driving away the fish.
Operators of both gill nets and pound nets' objected to allegedly unfair tactics of
deep-trap-net fishermen. Gill-netters stated that deep-trap-netters had usurped the
traditional gill-net grounds and even had deliberately set deep trap nets across
strings of gill nets. Pound-netters asserted that deep trap nets were set offshore
in such positions as to block the passage of whitefish to the inshore pound-net grounds.
Both groups of fishermen complained that the high production by deep trap nets
had glutted the market and depressed prices, making operations with other gears unprofitable.
The extent to which the many accusations leveled against deep trap nets and their
operators were just could not be determined without extensive field observations. Preliminary
inquiries, nevertheless, revealed that the deep trap net constituted an undeniably
serious threat to the whitefish fishery. It was in recognition of this menace
that the Michigan Department of Conservation and the United States Bureau of
Fisheries (now the Fish and Wildlife Service) agreed to carry out, cooperatively a
program of field observation, in order first, to determine the effects of the deep trap net
on the whitefish fishery, and second, to obtain information on which to base recommendations
for sound regulation of the gear.
By 1901, the first year of the cooperative field investigations, the deep-trap-net
fishery had expanded so rapidly that in a number of localities the net had become the
dominant gear for the catching of whitefish. These nets were then being fished extensively
in the State of Michigan waters of Lake Huron as far south as the "Middle
Grounds" off the mouth of Saginaw Bay and had spread also into Lake Michigan where
they were used in Green Bay and in northern Lake Michigan, out of Manistique and
especially out of ports of the north channel area (region north of the Beaver Islands).
In 1931 deep trap nets were fished also in the waters of Door County, Wisconsin. (For
a condensed report of the brief survey of these waters in 1931 consult appendix C.)
The Michigan Department of Conservation's Patrol Boat No. 1 was placed at the
service of the United States Bureau of Fisheries investigators from July 22 to 27, 1931,
when a general survey of the deep-trap-net grounds of northern Lake Michigan and of
Lake Huron was made. For the conduct of the later routine field observations, the
Department of Conservation assigned one field assistant and paid the operating expenses
of one automobile from August 1 to October 21, 1931, and during the month of May 1932.
Beginning June 1, 1932, and extending into October, when the field work was discontinued,
the Michigan Department of Conservation furnished three field assistants and
paid the operating expenses of two automobiles. This increase of the staff made it
possible to conduct the investigation simultaneously on both northern Lake Michigan
and Lake Huron. The fishermen were practically all willing to cooperate by allowing