Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

390 FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
TABLE 55.—Annual fluctuations in the abundance of whitefish in the variou« districts and areas of Lake
• Huron, 1940-194S
[Expressed as percentages of average 1029-1939 abundance. In the computation of percentages for areas of more than one district and for the entire
lake, the abundance percentage for each district was weighted according to the percentage of the total 1929 production contributed by that
district]
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)
1
Inadequate data.
' No production.
1940
52
32
44
9
17
Abundance percentage
in year
1941
56
36
48
(•)
15
15
1942
75
24
53
41
15
19
H-5
H-6
District or area
Southern Lake Huron (H-5 and
H-6)
1940
12
14
13
29
Abundance percentage
in year
9 of part II) brought about by a level of abundance (tables 55 and 56—see tables 10
and 11 of part II) that made profitable operations impossible.
Although the abundance percentages (table 55). and records of catch per unit effort
(table 56) can not be considered very reliable for the districts in which the production
reached extremely low figures, the data of table 55 nevertheless give some indication that
with respect to the entire lake the abundance, which began to decline in 1932, reached
its lowest level in 1940 (29 percent of the 1929-1939 average) and improved slightly in
1941 (31 percent) and 1942 (35 percent). 46 These small increases in the abundance
percentages can not be taken as the basis for optimism concerning a possible early
recovery of the whitefish fishery. On the contrary, it is to be considered most probable
that the abundance and production of whitefish will continue to be low for years to
come. The fishing intensity which was relatively low in all districts in 1940-1942 (table
53) and which had declined to 7.7 percent of average in 1942 for all districts combined
(table 54) can not be expected to increase materially until abundance has risen to a level
that permits profitable fishing. If a significant recovery occurs at all in the whitefish
fishery of Lake Huron it may be expected to be slow. It is conceivable, of course,
TABLE 56.—Annual fluctuation in the catch of whitefish per unit of fishing effort of gill nets, deep trap nets,
and pound nets in the various districts of Lake Huron, 1940-1942
Gear and unit of effort
Gill net (unit lift of 10,000 feet) ....
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
ÍH-1 ...
lH-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-l
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
District
Catch of whitefish (pounds)
per unit of effort
« Tablée 53, M, 55, and 66 contain no figures for H-3 in 1940 and 1941 and for Hf5 in 1942. In H-3 thé email catch« of whitefish in 1940 and
1941 were mostly reported by fishermen using a gear («hallow trap net) not considered in our estimations of abundance or by operators whose reports
did not contain information on the amount of gear lifted. No whitefish were produced in H-5 in 1942.
1940
39.7
10.1
2.9
45.1
24.9
29.5
32.0
44.8
32.2
1.6
4.5
1.2
1941
39.5
3.2
13.2
57.8
28.0
27.8
57.5
42 5
30.0
3.1
1.8
1941
21
13
17
31
1942
50. 3
37.9
10.0
11.8
7.0
84.9
6.2
23.8
98.1
40.9
1.4
11.1
1942
(')
28
28
35