Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

WHITEFISH FISHERY OF LAKES HURON AND MICHIGAN 319
whitefish in every statistical district of Lake Huron (table 4 and appendix B). With
the increase in the use of deep trap nets the operations with pound nets and gill nets
declined in most districts to the point of insignificance. Only in H-l did the deep
trap net fail to become established as the overwhelmingly dominant gear. The percentage
of the total production of whitefish taken by deep trap nets was not greater
than 38 percent in that district before 1935, and exceeded 50 percent in only 3 years
(1936, 1937, and 1939). In other districts the deep trap net accounted for more than
50 percent of the total catch of whitefish in the first or second year of operation (possible
exception in H-4 where considerable quantities of whitefish taken by deep trap
nets in 1931 are included in the catches for which the re&ords of gear were not available)
and maintained a dominant position with great consistency throughout the later years.
This statement is true especially for southern Lake Huron (H-5 and H-6 combined)
where the deep trap net was responsible for more than 90 percent of the total yield in
every year after 1932 and for more than 95 percent in every year after 1935.
H-l
H-2
District or area
Northern Lake
Huron (H-l and
H-2)
H-3. ..
H-4
Central Lake
Huron (H-3 and
H-4) . .
H-5
H-6
Southern Lake
Huron (H-5 sod
H-6)
Lake Huron (all 6
districls) _
TABLE 4.—Production of whitefish in pounds in deep trap nets in Lake Huron, 1929-1939
[In parentheses, the deep-trap-net production expressed as я percentage of the total whitefish production]
1929
í 87,121
1 (31.7)
/ 87,121
i (13.4)
/ 87,121
1 (6.0)
1930
í 286,453
( (37.9)
358,872
(60.4)
645,325
(47.8)
/ 157,248
i (63.5)
í 68,748
i (6.6)
/ 225,996
i (17.5)
871,321
(30.3)
1931
375,122
(38.0)
376,887
(78.7)
752,009
(51.3)
395,230
(84.0)
'932,357
(47.9)
1,327,587
(54.9)
2,079,596
(50.2)
Production of whitefish in deep trap nets in year
1932
170,313
(27.3)
94,527
(80.5)
264,840
(35.7)
85,236
(62.0)
* 1,934,325
(78.5)
2,019,561
(77.7)
f 479,916
\ (93.5)
/ 479,916
\ (67.7)
2,764,317
(68.2)
1933
64,251
(17.6)
28,540
(50.3)
92,791
(22.0)
9,912
(70.1)
620,125
(81.4)
630,037
(81.2)
1,658,753
(98.9)
/ 322,995
1 (70.3)
1,981,748
(92.8)
2,704,576
(81.1)
1934
104,699
(27.7)
44,153
(47.4)
148,852
(31.6)
12,558
(87.2)
116,840
(59.9)
129,407
(61.8)
783,606
(99.9)
999,618
(90.6)
1,783,224
(94.5)
2,061,483
(80.3)
1935
163,465
(43.8)
94,584
(80.0)
258,049
(52.5)
7,964
(80.4)
138,446
(65.1)
146,410
(66.1)
272,746
(99.8)
810,137
(89.1)
1,082,883
(91.6)
1,487,342
(78.5)
1936
346,821
(64.1)
46,602
(83.8)
393,423
(65.9)
7,567
(94.5)
75,438
(58.6)
83,005
(60.7)
119,103
(100.0)
571,176
(96.9)
690,279
(97.4)
1,Ш,707
(80.9)
1937
236,196
(73.2)
14,009
(67.3)
250,205
(63.4)
1,934
(69.1)
121,796
(78.5)
123,730
(78.4)
66,688
(99.8)
393,541
(98.5)
460,229
(98.7)
834,164
(81.9)
1938
73,184
(40.6)
34,315
(83.0)
107,499
(48.5)
8,910
(97.2)
38,224
(68.4)
'47,134
(72,5)
41,832
(99.8)
226,608
(98.7) •
268,440
(98.9)
423,073
(75.8)
1939
73,406
(52.0)
41,980
(98.3)
115,386
.(62.9)
277
(49.7)
18,785
(72.4)
19,062
(71.9)
12,247
(100.0)
31,822
(96.1)
44,069
(97.2)
178,517
(70.0)
Total
1,893,910
(37.2)
1,221,590
(64.5)
3,115,500
(44.6)
686,836
(67.9)
4,065,093
(53.8)
4,751,929
(55.4)
3,434,891
(92.4)
3,355,897
(77.7)
6,790,788
(84.5)
14,658,217
(62.1)
1
Pounds and the corresponding percentage are top low; the total production in H-4 in 1931 and 1932 included considerable quantities of whitefish
for which records of the gear ofcapture were lacking, but a large part of which came from deep trap neta. Other totals and percentages in the
computation of which these figures were involved were affected relatively less severely.
A peculiar feature of the production of whitefish in Lake Huron, 1930-1935, lay
in the circumstance that a high level of yield was maintained by a successive rather
than a simultaneous exploitation of the stocks in the various portions of the lake (table
5 and appendix B). In each area the catch of whitefish followed a typical cycle after
the introduction of the deep trap net. Production was raised to tremendous heights
for about 2 years, only to fall away sharply. Since the use of the deep trap net spread
gradually throughout the lake, first one area and then another bore the burden of
heavy fishing.
Although the deep trap net was fished in H-2 in 1929 (in 1928 also), it did not
produce large quantities of fish until 1930. In this same year the net was employed
extensively in H-l and H-3 also and was introduced into H—á. In 1931 high yields
were obtained in each of these first four districts. Thus it was possible for the production
of whitefish in Lake Huron to increase phenomenally in 1930 and attain an