Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

380 FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
of treated nets averaged a little less than a half inch smaller than the mesh size as manufactured.
The amount of shrinkage varied widely, however, in the individual nets.
Because of this variation the minimum legal size of mesh should be specified "as found
in use" rather than "as manufactured.", Once a net has been treated, it is impossible
to determine exactly the original size of the mesh.
APPENDIX A
SOURCES OF THE DATA ON PRODUCTION, 1879-1939
The following paragraphs contain the details concerning the sources of the production
data of table 1. Where more than one source was available for any single year,
preference usually was given to that with the most continuous record over a period of
years.
(1) Sessional Papers of the Parliament, Dominion of Canada: all data for the
Canadian waters of Lake Huron, 1879-1905.
(2) Annual Reports of thé Game and Fisheries Department of the Province of
Ontario: all data for the Canadian waters of Lake Huron, 1906-1939.
(3) Reports of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries and his administrative
successors: all data for United States waters, 1879 (repeatedly listed erroneously in the
reports as for 1880) and 1885; United States waters, except the Wisconsin waters of
Lake Michigan, 1890 (including the total for the Lake) ; Wisconsin waters of Lake
Michigan, 1926-1939; total for Lake Michigan, 1925; Indiana and Illinois waters of
Lake Michigan, 1879, 1885, 1890, 1897, 1903, 1917, 1922, and 1925-1939 (actually, no
whitefish catch was reported from these States in 1938 and 1939). The Indiana and Illinois
catches of whitefish in Lake Michigan for the above years, although not recorded in
table 1, have been included in the Lake Michigan totals. All other Lake Michigan
totals for individual years, except 1889 and 1908, are exclusive of the Indiana and
Illinois catches.
(4) Reports of фе State of Michigan Department of Conservation and its administrative
predecessors: State of Michigan waters of Lake Michigan, 1911; State of
Michigan waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan, 1912-1928.
(5) United States Bureau of the Census—Fisheries of the Great Lakes, Census
Bulletin no. 173: all United States waters (including catches in Illinois and Indiana),
1889. Fisheries of the United States, Special Report r Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan,
1908; Indiana and Illinois waters of Lake Michigan, 1908 (not listed in table 1
but included in the total for the lake).
(6) Compilations made from original State records:
Wiscçnsin.—Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan, 1890, 1892-1897, 1899, 1903,
and 1909-1925.
Michigan.—Michigan waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan, 1891-1908.
Michigan'.—Compilations from the daily reports of commercial fishermen—State
of Michigan waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan, 1929-1939. (These data are
treated in detail in part II.)
Although certain data are available for earlier years, the statistical records for,
the whitefish fisheries of the United States waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan
may be assumed for practical purposes to begin with 1889 and 1891. The 1879, 1885,
and 1890 catches included longjaws, blackfms, and Menominee whitefish in Lake
Michigan, and Menominee whitefish in Lake Huron. The only clue as to the extent
of the errors brought about by these inclusions is provided by the fact that in 1890
longjaws, blackfins, and Menominee whitefish made up about 26 percent of the
reported catch of whitefish in Lake Michigan (1,398,238 pounds in a total of 5,455,079
pounds). The 1890 total for the Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan is based on State
records and is not known to include any species other than whitefish. However,
Wisconsin contributes a relatively small part of the total whitefish catch in Lake
Michigan.
As has been mentioned previously, the Lake Michigan totals for several individual
years do hot include the catch of whitefish in Indiana and Illinois waters. However,