Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

WHITEFISH FISHERY OF LAKES HURON AND MICHIGAN 385
APPENDIX С
INVESTIGATION OF POUND NETS AND DEEP TRAP NETS IN THE
WISCONSIN WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN, 1931«
The brief investigation of the pound-net and deep-trap-net fisheries of the Door
peninsula was conducted for the specific purpose of determining the validity of the
strenuous complaints of commercial fishermen against the use of the deep trap net.
The objections against the deep trap net as a dangerously efficient gear, as a source of
destruction to young fish ; and as a usurper of pound-net grounds were in general the
same as those put forward by Michigan fishermen, and, consequently, need not be
outlined in detail here. (See p. 298.) The procedure of the investigation involved
observations of the lifting of pound nets and deep trap nets, interviews with operators
of both types of nets (including a public hearing attended by more than 250 fishermen
at Fish Creek, July 10, 1931), and the compilation of statistics on (1) the production
of whitefish in the Wisconsin waters of Green Bay and Lake Michigan,
beginning in 1889, and (2) the production of whitefish and the catch per lift in pound
nets and deep trap nets of 1 the Door peninsula, 1930-1931.
PRODUCTION OF WHITEFISH IN THE GREEN BAY AND LAKE
MICHIGAN WATERS OF WISCONSIN, 1889-1939
The data on whitefish production in the State of Wisconsin waters of Green Bay
and Lake Michigan (table 49) were compiled from original records in the files of the
Wisconsin Conservation Department. 43
Year
1889
1890
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1899
1903
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917 -.
1918 --
1919
TABLE 49.—Production of whitefish in pounds in Green Bay and Lake Michigan, 1889-1939
Green Bay
248810
181,692
54540
450,000
392,100
500,000
525,000
568,367
37,685
5,949
83,114
49,340
36,424
102,080
41,750
21,435
00,835
12,049
20,853
21,012
83,184
Lake Michigan
78450
5,750
279540
20,325
25,000
20,325
28,000
317,991
37,670
110,815
50,139
28,221
88,095
78203
76,175
19,230
60,081
96,172
106,080
233,067
118,935
[Compiled from State records at Madison, Wis.]
Green Bay and
Lake Michigan
327,260
187,442
334,080
470,325
417,100
520,325
553,000
886,358
125,355
116 764
133,253
77,561
124,510
180,283
117,925
40,665
120,916
108,221
126,933
254,079
202,119
Year
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925 .
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1832
1933
1934
1935-
1936
1937
1938-
1939. . .
Green Bay
42,411
171,896
80,658
74,484
182,989
147 556
249 976
191 779
430 386
28-7 648
500 996
462 117
183002
86 051
82*105
49046
45587
60,982 '
27,200
lake Michigan
89,022
190,519
82543
363 439
64 115
94823
90 479
122 453
123 681
34 832
235 663
93522
37 402
17 591
43,555
91,270
80,663
86,620
Green Bay and
Lake Michigan
131,433
362,415
163 201
437 923
247 104
242 379
340 455
314*232
554 067
332 613
535 828
697 780
276 524
123 453
99696
263,900
142,601
136,857
141,625
113,820
Green Bay.—Whitefish production was Jarge in the early and middle nineties, bût
there was a sharp drop in the catch at about the turn of the century. Production
remained rather consistently at a low level over the years, 1909-1923; only two years
(1912 and 1921) of this period had yields in excess of 100,000 pounds. Beginning in
1924 the production of whitefish in Green Bay followed an irregular but definite upward
trend that culminated in a yield of a half million pounds in 1930. This catch (1930)
was the greatest since 1897 and was the third largest in the known history of the fishery.
" This section ig condensed from the unpublished "Report to the Conservation Commission of the State of Wisconsin on the Investigation of Deep
Trap Nets, Conducted Jointly bv the State Fisheries Department and the United States Bureau of Fisheries during the Period, July 6 to 11,1931,
in the Waters of Door County, Wisconsin." The investigation was made by Dr. John Van Oosten of the United States Bureau of Fisheries (now the
Fish and Wildlife Service) and Messrs. B. 0. Webster and Ira G. Smith of the Wisconsin Conservation Department.
" There are certain discrepancies between the data of table 49 of this appendix and those of table 1 of part I. These arise from the fact that
the former table has been based entirely on State of Wisconsin records On order to have data for Green Bay and Lake Michigan separately) whereas
the records of whitefoh production in Wisconsin waters in the latter table were obtained from several sources. (See appendix A.)