Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

336 FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The deep trap net became the dominant gear for the taking of whitefish in only
three (M-2, M-3, and M-7) of the eight districts of Lake Michigan (table 14 ; and
appendix B), and maintained that position in the first two districts only 2 years (1932
and 1933) and in M-7 only 1 year (1934). With the exception of the fishery in M-7 in
1934, deep trap nets were operated only sporadically in waters south'of M-3.
Although the actual yield of whitefish in each district and the percentage distribution
among the several districts of the total for the lake both varied rather widely in
Lake Michigan during the period, 1929-1939 (table 15), there is no evidence of a shifting
of the center of production comparable to that which took place in Lake Huron. For
example, M-3 did not relinquish once its position as the most productive district of the
lake; neither did northern Lake Michigan (M-l, M-2, М-тЗ, and M-4) fail in any year
to account for more than 50 percent of the catch of the entire lake.
TABLE 15.—Total annual production of whitefish in pounds in the different districts and areas of the State
of Michigan waters of Lake Michigan, 1929-1939
M-l
M-2
M-3
M-4
District or area
Central Lake / 284,620
Michigan (M-5)-. 1 '(6.6)
M-6
M-7.. . .
M-8
Lake Michigan (all
8 districts)
Percentage of aver-
[Each total is expressed also as the percentage (in parentheses) of the production of the entire lake]
1929
/1,139,628
1 (26.6)
/ 90,019
1 (2,1)
,'2,202,064
1 (51.3)
í 72,629
1 (1.7)
Northern Lake
Michigan (M-l, /3,504,340
M-2, M-3, & M-4) \ (81.7)
/ 103,397
1 (2.4)
/ 139,690
1 (3.3)
í 255,822
\ (6.0)
outhern Lake
Michigan (M-6, / 498,909
M-7, and M-8)... 1 (П.6)
184
1930
1,075,748
Í22.4)
100,625
(2.1)
2,460,656
(51.1)
84,119
(1.7)
3,721,148
(77.3)
280,701
(5.8)
222,148
(4.6)
447,760
(9.4)
141,068
(2.9)
810,976
(16.9)
206
1931
1,194,969
(31.3)
81,618
(2.1)
1,330,450
(36.1)
84,253
(2.2)
2,741,290
(71.7)
580,536
(15.2)
252,015
(6.6)
107,206
(2.8)
142,936
(3.7)
502,157
(13.1)
164
1932
910,106
(27.3)
97,248
(2.9)
1,489,472
(44.7)
78,771
(2.4)
2,575,597
Í77.3)
558,573
(16.8)
85,080
(2.5)
47,934
(1.4)
65,100
(2.0)
198,114
(5.9)
143
Total whitefish production in year
1933
23S.169
(10.7)
42,277
(1.9)
890,899
(39.8)
51,010
(2.3)
1,222,355
(54.7)
529,697
(23.7)
43,181
(1.9)
157,699
(7.1)
282,908
(12.6)
483,788
(21.6)
96
1934
263,005
(13.6)
' 26,858
(1.4)
761,831
(39.4)
48,369
(2.5)
1,100,063
(56.9)
298,497
(15.5)
37,450
(1.9)
190,582
(9.9)
305,536
(15,8)
533,618
(27.6)
4,287,869 4,812,825 3,823,983 3,332,284 2,235,840 1,932,178 1,431,724
83
1935
174,637
(12.2)
40,264
(3.2)
749,066
(52.4)
47,978
(3.3)
1,018,545
(71.1)
208,807
(14.6)
24,861
(1.7)
30,500
(2.2)
149,005
(10.4)
204,372
(14.3)
' 61
1936
90,203
(10.3)
46,465
(5.3)
445,967
(50.9)
56,234
(6.4)
638,869
(72.9)
198,801
(22.7)
14,063
(1.6)
5,212
(0.6)
19,466
(2.2)
38,741
(4.4)
876,411
,38
1937
104,889
(11.1)
31,493
(3.3)
450,611l
(47.6)
43,866
(4.6)
630,867
(66.6)
267,385
I2S.3)
11,100
(1.2)
8,017
(0.8)
29,498
(3.1)
48,615
(5.1)
946,867
41
1938
354,235
(31.7)
24,221
(2.2)
497,776
(44.6)
29,249
(2.6)
905,481
(81.1)
189,658
(17.0)
6,787
(0.6)
1,137
(0.1)
14,016
(1.2)
21,940
(1.9)
1,117,079
48
1939
237,509
(28.3)
15,402
(1.8)
425,495
(50.7)
31,767
(3.8)
710,173
(84.6)
97,268
(11.6)
4,653
(0.5)
1,537
(0.2)
26,225
(3.1)
32,415
(З.Й)
839,856 2,330,629
36
Average
525,736
(22.6)
54,772
(2.3)
1,068,627
(45.9)
57,113
(2.4)
1,706,248
(73.2)
317,686
(13.6)
73,158
(3.2)
103,389
(4.4)
130,148
(5.6)
306,635
(13.2)
Nevertheless, the relative importance of the districts varied considerably. M-3
produced as little as 36.1 percent (1931) and as much as 52.4 percent (1935) of the
total catch of whitefish in the lake. In M-l, the district that ranked second in average
yield, the percentages ranged from 10.3 (1936) to 31.7 (1938). The district that
ranked third in average production (M-5) yielded from 5.8 percent (1930) to 28.3 percent
(1937) of the total for the lake.
The percentage contributions of the less important districts varied relatively more
widely than did those for the more productive areas. The greatest relative variation occurred
in M-7 which produced 9.9 percent of the 1934 total but only 0.1 percent of the
1938 catch. However, among the five districts that each accounted for less than 10
percent of the 1929-1939 average only one (M-8) produced more than 10 percent of