28.06.2013 Views

Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service - NOAA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

WHITEFISH FISHERY OF LAKES HURON AND MICHIGAN 391<br />

that unusual conditions in <strong>the</strong> lake which. permitted an abnormally 'high survival <strong>of</strong><br />

young in one or more years may restore <strong>the</strong> stock at a much higher rate than <strong>the</strong> present<br />

depleted condition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population would give reason to expect.<br />

Not only did <strong>the</strong> Michigan production <strong>of</strong> Lake Huron continue its decline after<br />

1939, but <strong>the</strong> Canadian yield showed a similar trend (table 57), although not to <strong>the</strong><br />

same disastrous degree. In Lake Huron proper (see p. 304 for its boundaries) <strong>the</strong><br />

Canadian catch fell to 92,000 pounds in 1940 <strong>and</strong> increased only 1,000 pounds in 1941.<br />

These records are <strong>the</strong> lowest two for <strong>the</strong>se waters since 1922 <strong>and</strong> comprise 42 percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> average catch (219,513 pounds) for <strong>the</strong> period, 1923-1939. In Georgian Bay (includes<br />

<strong>the</strong> North Channel—see p. 304) <strong>the</strong> take decreased progressively from 1,275,-<br />

000 pounds in 1939 to 833,000 pounds in 1941, <strong>the</strong> lowest production recorded for this<br />

area at least since 1922. This figure represents 58 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> average yield (1,427,564<br />

pounds) for <strong>the</strong> years, 1923-1939. In <strong>the</strong> Michigan waters <strong>the</strong> 1941 catch equaled only<br />

6 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> average production (2,052,331 pounds) during <strong>the</strong> period, 1922-1937,<br />

a value considerably less than <strong>the</strong> comparable'Canadian percentages <strong>of</strong> 42 <strong>and</strong> 58.<br />

The 1939-1941 records <strong>of</strong> total catch for all waters (United States <strong>and</strong> Canadian)<br />

represent <strong>the</strong> lowest three ever recorded for <strong>the</strong> lake.<br />

Year<br />

1939<br />

1940 ... .<br />

1941<br />

1942<br />

TABLE 57.—Production <strong>of</strong> whitefish in pounds in Lakes Michigan <strong>and</strong> Huron, 1939-1948<br />

Winconsm<br />

110.700<br />

186,600<br />

400,538<br />

279,363<br />

Lake Michigan<br />

Michigan<br />

839,856<br />

754,115<br />

896,474<br />

1,061,056<br />

Entire lake<br />

950,556<br />

854,815<br />

1,286,354<br />

1,340,419<br />

Michigan<br />

255,183<br />

188,114<br />

113,727<br />

95,094<br />

HuTon proper<br />

115,061<br />

92,403<br />

93,058<br />

Lake Huron<br />

Ontario<br />

WHITEFISH FISHERY OF LAKE MICHIGAN, 1940-1942<br />

Georgian Bay<br />

1,275,255<br />

1,006,082<br />

833,111<br />

Entire lake<br />

1,645,499<br />

1,286,599<br />

1,039,896<br />

The production <strong>of</strong> whitefish in <strong>the</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Michigan waters <strong>of</strong> Lake Michigan,<br />

which had declined irregularly from <strong>the</strong> modern peak <strong>of</strong> 4,813,000 pounds in 1930, reached<br />

an all-time recorded low <strong>of</strong> 754,000 pounds in 1940 (table 58—for fur<strong>the</strong>r data on<br />

production see also table 1 <strong>of</strong> part I, tables 13, 14, 15, <strong>and</strong> 16 <strong>of</strong> part II, <strong>and</strong><br />

appendix B). Although this yield amounted to only 32 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1929-1939 average,<br />

it was relatively much higher than <strong>the</strong> 1940 catch in Lake Huron (9 percent <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> 1929-1939 mean—table 52). The take <strong>of</strong> whitefish in Lake Michigan improved substantially<br />

in 1941 (896,000 pounds; 38 percent) <strong>and</strong> 1942 (1,061,000 pounds; 46 percent).<br />

The 1940-1942 trend <strong>of</strong> production was consistently upward in nor<strong>the</strong>rn <strong>and</strong><br />

nor<strong>the</strong>astern Lake Michigan (M-2, M-3, <strong>and</strong> M-4) <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Gr<strong>and</strong> Haven-Muskegon<br />

district (M-7), but was consistently downward in Green Bay (M-l) or irregular in <strong>the</strong><br />

remaining districts (M-5, M-6, <strong>and</strong> M-8).<br />

In all three years M-3 contributed considerably more than half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total production<br />

(63.8, 58.4, <strong>and</strong> 67.5 percent in 1940, 1941, <strong>and</strong> 1942, respectively). The Green<br />

Bay district (M-l) ranked second each year but contributed a constantly decreasing<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total (16.3, 12.9, <strong>and</strong> 8.7 percent). Third position was held by M-5<br />

in 1940 <strong>and</strong> 1941 (11.5 <strong>and</strong> 10.0 percent) <strong>and</strong> by M-4 in 1942 (6.7 percent). The percentage<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total yield produced in <strong>the</strong> districts that ranked lower than third ranged<br />

from 7.5 percent in М-á in 1941 to 0.1 percent in M-7 in 1940. It may be noted .that<br />

<strong>the</strong> percentages <strong>of</strong> total production in <strong>the</strong> various districts in 1940-1942 resembled <strong>the</strong><br />

corresponding figures for 1891-1908 much more closely than <strong>the</strong>y did those for 1929-<br />

1939. The abundance percentages, records <strong>of</strong> catch per unit <strong>of</strong> effort, <strong>and</strong> figures on<br />

fishing intensity (tables 59, 60, 61, <strong>and</strong> 62—see tables 17, 19, 20, <strong>and</strong> 21 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main<br />

body <strong>of</strong> this paper) show that but for a low level <strong>of</strong> fishing intensity, production would<br />

have been much higher in 1940-1942, particularly in <strong>the</strong> last two years <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> period.<br />

The abundance <strong>of</strong> whitefish which had dropped to an extremely low level in 1940 (23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!