Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

322 FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The range of rank was the greater in the more recent period in each district except
H-3, a region in which the whitefish fishery was unimportant after 1932. The greatest
increase in range occurred in H-5 which held every position from first to sixth
although this area had ranked sixth 17 times (fifth in the remaining year) in the
period, 1891-1908, and had not yielded more than 7,500 pounds in any one of the 18
years.
It should be noted further that with only one exception (the rank of 5) each of the
rankings from 1 to 6 occurred in more districts in 1930-1939 than in 1891-1908. For
example, first position was held in four districts (all but H-2 and H-3) in the more
recent period as compared with only two (H-l and H-4) in the earlier years, second
rank was held by four districts in 1930-1939 as compared with three in 1891-1908,***.
The actual figures of catch of tables 5 and 6 support the observations based on
the rankings, for the yields of the individual districts were in general far less variable
in the early than in the recent period.
TABLE 6.—Production of whitefish in pounds in Lake Huron according to statistical districts, 1891-1908
Year
1891
1892
1893
1891
1895
1896
1897 . --
1898
1899
1900
1901. ..
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
H-l
1,304,220
1,150,933
1,204,400
939,250
614,830
440,600
392,100
239,800
201,600
152,400
219,025
307,000
312,700
328,000
381,200
492,300
658,500
578,915
550,987
56.6
H-2
133,000
94,000
12,000
91,600
75,550
HR.616
141,555
59,500
96,000
104,000
137,000
137,500
106,100
54,000
30,300
38,500
45,000
48,963
84,621
8.7
Statistical district
H-3
58,500
29,200
131,500
61,500
39,500
167,300
38,300
38,500
36,100
99,500
154,300
122,000
70,700
85,000
29,800
25,600
64,600
41,666
71,865
7.4
H-4
91,540
160,450
199,900
116,550
203,687
264,119
285,200
249,050
306,560
191,520
263,720
331,930
436,360
303,860
208,260
198,220
282,772
270,832
242,474
24.9
Н-5
6,000
3,500
2,000
1,000
1,500
500
4,000
1,500
1,800
4,500
5,000
600
400
1,000
3,500
5,000
3,300
7,500
2,922
0.3
Н-6
31,600
48,100
27,800
8,350
10,800
14,600
4,805
4,400
3,520
3,500
9,200
14,500
11,200
15,500
21,800
32,100
78,800
26,029
20,367
2.1
Total
1,624,360
1,486,183
1,577,600
1,218,250
945,867
1,005,735
865,960
592,750
645,580
555,420
788,245
913,530
937,460
787,360
674,860
791,720
1,132,972
973,905
The records of yield for the years, 1891-1908, indicate also that the percentages
of the total catch of whitefish in the different districts were approximately normal in
1929, the only recent year (with data for each district separately) in which the statistics
were not seriously distorted by the deep-trap-net fishery. It is true, the percentage
distribution of the catch of whitefish in Lake Huron in 1929 (table 5) differed
somewhat from that for the average for 1891-1908. It will be noticed, for example,
that in 1929 the greatest production (39.2 percent) was from H-4 with H-l in second
position (25.8 percent) whereas in 1891-1908 the greatest average yield came from
H-l (56.6 percent) with H-4 in second position (24.9 percent) . Among the remaining
districts the percentages were higher in 1929 in H-2 (in part because of the catch in
deep trap nets), H-5, and H-6, and possibly lower in H-3, 23
973,236
but the rankings of the
districts were the same.
The differences in the values of these percentages are not large enough, however,
to warrant the conclusion that the relative capacities of the various districts for the
production of whitefish in 1929 M 7
ere changed greatly from those of 1891-1908. Although
the high percentage of the total yield of whitefish in H-4 in 1929 is in disagreement
The division of the statistics for the earlier years was based on the location of the home port and not necessarily on the grounds actually fished.
of 71
71,865 pounds and 242,474 pounds as recorded in table 6; the percentages should have been 3.3 and 29.0 instead of 7.4 and 24.9. There is no
eon to believe that the data for other districts were affected significantly by the division of the catch according to port.