394 



FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



tively high in M-2, M-3, M-4, and M-5 and low in southern Lake Michigan (M-6, 

 M-7, and M-8) and Green Bay (M-l). 



The significance of the most recent figures for the whitefish fishery of the State of 

 Michigan waters of Lake Michigan may be summarized in the one statement that the 

 abundance of whitefish appears to be returning to an approximately normal level while 

 production is held in check by a low fishing intensity. 



Whether this statement is equally true for the whitefish of the Lake Michigan waters 

 of other States is not known. Virtually no whitefish production is recorded for Illi- 

 nois and Indiana in 1940-1942. The Wisconsin statistics (table 57) suggest some im- 

 provement in that State. In contrast to the Michigan catch, that of Wisconsin in- 

 creased in both 1940 and 1941, reaching a relatively high level in 1941, although again 

 in contrast to Michigan's yield, it decreased to approximately the normal level in 

 1942. With respect to the entire lake (all States) the trend of production is upward, 

 after 2 years of extremely low yields. 



BEARING OF THE 1940-1942 STATISTICS OF THE WHITEFISH FISHERIES OF 



LAKES HURON AND MICHIGAN ON THE VALIDITY 



OF EARLIER CONCLUSIONS 



The 1940-1942 statistics of the whitefish fishery of the State of Michigan waters 

 of Lakes Huron and Michigan do not give the slightest reason for modifying the ^sum- 

 mary paragraphs at the end of part II of the main body of this paper. In Lake Huron 

 the "collapse of the whitefish fishery" proved to be even more devastating than had 

 been anticipated. The belief that in Lake Michigan the decline of the whitefish was 

 "not disastrous" has been substantiated by the return of the whitefish to nearly normal 

 abundance (91 and 95 percent) in 1941 and 1942. 



The contrast between conditions in the whitefish fisheries of Lake Huron and Lake 

 Michigan in 1940-1942 is brought out sharply by the data of table 63 (see also table 22 

 of part II). In Lake Huron, production and fishing intensity, already at an extremely 

 low level in 1940, continued to decline in 1941 and 1942. Any improvement that did 

 occur in the status of the whitefish was relatively small. The abundance of whitefish 

 was relatively much higher in 1940 in Lake Michigan (63 percent of average) than in 

 Lake Huron (29 percent) . Furthermore, the abundance in Lake Michigan rose sharply 

 in 1941 and increased again in 1942. The production of whitefish also increased signifi- 

 cantly in 1941 and 1942. Only fishing intensity declined (in 1941) or remained un- 

 changed (in 1942). The supplementary data of this appendix, therefore, support the 

 conclusion that overfishing traceable to deep-trap-net operations brought about the ruin 

 of the whitefish fishery in Lake Huron. Although overfishing admittedly may have 

 occurred in Lake Michigan and may have contributed to the decline that culminated in 

 1940, this overfishing was much less severe than in Lake Huron and did not carry the 

 level of abundance of whitefish so low as to make rapid recuperation of the stock impos- 

 sible. In fact, only low fishing intensity prevented nearly normal production of white- 

 fish in Lake Michigan in 1941 and 1942. 



Table 63. — Production and abundance of whitefish and the intensity of the whitefish fishery in the State 

 of Michigan waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron 



■ft-U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1946—635123 



