WHITEFISH FISHERY OF LAKES HURON AND MICHIGAN 



321 



The increases in the catch of whitefish in H-2 and H^l in 1935 exceeded the 

 decreases in H-l and H-3; consequently, the totals increased slightly in both northern 

 and central Lake Huron. However, the large decreases in H-5 and H-6 (705,000 

 pounds for the two districts) caused the yield of the entire lake to decline 673,000 

 pounds. 



With the onset of the decline in production in H-6 in 1935 the cycle of exploitation 

 of the stocks of Lake Huron whitefish by means of the deep trap net was approaching 

 its final stages. As the fishery failed in other areas deep-trap-net fishermen had 

 moved on to new grounds. H-6, however, had provided the last unexploited fishing area 

 available. The lack of new grounds may account for the fact that large numbers 

 of deep-trap-net fishermen remained longer in H-6 than they had in any other district. 

 H-6, despite a continued decline in the catch, maintained first rank among the dis- 

 tricts in the production of whitefish during the 5-year period. 1934-1938, relinquishing 

 this position only with the almost complete collapse of the fishery in 1939. 



It is true that in some districts the general decline during the later years of the 

 fishery was interrupted by temporary increases as fishermen returned to glean a scant 

 harvest from their former grounds. The most noteworthy recovery occurred in H-l, 

 where in 1936 the production of whitefish rose above a half million pounds. However, 

 the deep-trap-net operations in H-l in 1936 were not centered in the southeastern part 

 of the district (especially in Hammond Bay) as in earlier years but were carried on 

 chiefly in the northwestern end (Cheboygan- St. Ignace) in an area that formerly had 

 been exploited only moderately. These temporary increases in certain districts were 

 insufficient by far to halt the general downward trend of the catch in the lake as a whole. 



An outstanding feature of the statistical data discussed in the preceding pages was 

 the shift from year to year in the center of production of whitefish. The output fluc- 

 tuated over a wide range in all districts. Especially striking, however, were the in- 

 creases in southern Lake Huron which accounted for only 9.3 percent of the 1929 

 production but vielded more than 60 percent of the total for the lake in 1933, 1934. 

 and 1935 (73.5 percent in 1934). 



These violent fluctuations in production and shifts in the center of operations 

 suggest distinctly abnormal conditions in the fishery. The belief that conditions were 

 abnormal in the years following 1929 finds support in the data on the catch of white- 

 fish in the various districts in the earlier period of the fishery, 1891-1908 (table 6). 

 Although a certain amount of shifting did occur in the relative importance of the 

 several districts for the production of whitefish, these changes were insignificant in 

 comparison with the tremendous fluctuations that took place during the recent years, 

 1930-1939 (table 5). In the earlier period, for example. H-l and H-4 held first or 

 second rank in every year except 1891 when the second highest yield was made in 

 H-2 (H-l in first position and H-4 in the third). Third and fourth rankings usually 

 were held by H-2 and H-3 (characteristically in that order) while H-6 commonly 

 ranked fifth and H-5 was normally sixth (only one exception). The limited extent 

 of the fluctuations in the rankings of the districts with respect to the production of 

 whitefish in 1891-1908 is brought out by the following tabulation (left half) which 

 shows the number of years each position was held by each district. The right half of 

 the tabulation brings out the sharp contrast in yield with that for the period of the 

 deep-trap-net fishery, 1930-1939: 



