smaller chubs probably were in- 

 cluded with lake herring although 

 no statement was made to that 

 effect . 



"Scattered statistics on the 

 production of chubs were obtained 

 from the original State of Michigan 

 records for 1891-1908. All of 

 these catches were designated by 

 marginal notations alongside figures 

 entered in the column for lake herring . 

 Practically all were labeled specific - 

 ally as longjaws or blackfins although 

 a few entries were indicated as chubs 

 in the later years of the period . All 

 these records of chub production must 

 be held as minimal . The variation 

 of the figures leaves little doubt 

 that longjaws and blackfins were 

 separated from herring in only 

 certain years, and there is no proof 

 that the separation was complete in 

 any year. Furthermore, the small 

 chubs were unaccounted for in al- 

 most all years . 



"The published reports of the 

 State of Michigan for 1911-18 con- 

 tained one entry for 'longjaws' and 

 another for 'herring or chubs' . 

 After 1918 a satisfactory separa- 

 tion seems to have been made 

 although in 1919-21 the chubs were 

 divided into the categories 'blackfins 

 and bluefins' and 'longjaws or chubs'. 



"Usable statistics in the original 

 records of the State of Wisconsin did 

 not include an item 'chubs' before 

 1909. Before 1909 most or all chubs 

 probably were included in the cate- 

 gory 'bluefins'. This same group 

 appears also to have included part 

 of the chubs in 1909 and later years . 

 Unfortunately the significance of 

 the term 'bluefin' varies with local- 

 ity. We believe that we have obtained 

 the best figures possible by consider- 

 ing all bluefins from Lake Michigan 

 proper and from Lake Superior to be 

 chubs and all bluefins from Green 

 Bay to be lake herring." 



From the preceding it appears that the 

 catches listed for Michigan were in fact chubs 

 but that many or most of the records were in- 

 complete. The problem of completeness of 

 coverage exists for Wisconsin also; in addition 

 there is some question as to the validity of the 

 interpretation of the state records of catches of 

 bluefins . 



The Michigan statistics indicate an 

 active chub fishery in 1898-1908 . The listed 

 take in the 10 years of record within this in- 

 terval ranged from 931, 000 pounds in 1903 to 

 3, 848, 000 pounds in 1906 and averaged 

 1, 931, 000 pounds . The true catch may, of 

 course, have been higher. The Michigan statis- 

 tics for 1911-1925 are so obviously incomplete 

 in many years as to warrant little comment. 

 Figures for 1918, 1919, and 1925 prove that 

 production did exceed 1 million pounds in some 

 years . 



If the assumption that the "bluefins" 

 recorded by Wisconsin for Lake Michigan 

 (except Green Bay) were chubs i s correct, that 

 state had a brisk chub fishery in the 1890's. In 

 1893-1896 the take ranged from 1, 476, 000 pounds 

 in 1893 to 3, 000, 000 in 1896. Recorded pro- 

 duction was low, however, in 1897 and 1899 . 

 (Statistics for the latter year, taken from a Fed- 

 eral report, are incomplete --see earlier.) 



The Federal records for chub production 

 in Wisconsin in 1903 and 1908 also were incom- 

 plete; hence we have little knowledge of the 

 extent of the fishing activity in the first part of 

 the present century. Production was fairly high, 

 however, in 1909 (3, 526, 000 pounds) when the 

 State resumed maintenance of records and in- 

 troduced the category "chubs" . (State records 

 continued to list bluefins for Lake Michigan 

 proper but they made up an unimportant per- 

 centage of the total for chubs . ) Over the period 

 1909-1925 the recorded take ranged from 

 955, 000 pounds in 1921 to 4, 183, 000 pounds in 

 1918 and averaged 2, 602, 000 pounds . 



The Michigan-Wisconsin totals are of 

 limited value because most of the available ones 

 are for years in which the statistics for at least 

 one of the states are open to strong suspicion. 

 The highest recorded yield was 5, 763., 0Q0 

 pounds in 1918. 



