568 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



SMELT 



The smelt has been planted several times in inland lakes of Michi- 

 gan, notably Torch and Crystal Lakes in the lower peninsula and in 

 Trout and Howe Lakes in Marquette County in the upper peninsula. 

 It is now known to be well established in all of these lakes except 

 Torch. It has also escaped into Lake Michigan and is apparently 

 spreading there at a rapid rate. In what numbers it occurs is not 

 known, but specimens have been taken off Frankfort and in Grand 

 Traverse Bay off Northport and even across the lake in Big Bay de 

 Noc and at Manistique. 



The introduction of the smelt into the Great Lakes must be de- 

 plored since its presence there can not serve any useful purpose and 

 there is some reason to believe that it is a menace to native species 

 now commercially important. It has been argued that the smelt is 

 itself a valuable food fish and that it serves as food for trout. In 

 reply it may be said that there is difficulty at present in finding a 

 market for species quite or almost as delectable as the smelt, and that 

 if the lake originally supported a trout population many times the 

 size of the present one it is probably capable of taking care of the few 

 remaining individuals, especially since none of those now taken show 

 any evidence of undernourishment. Furthermore, even if the species 

 should become marketable, the nets required to capture fish as small 

 as the smelt would most probabl}^ be destructive to the young of the 

 native species. On the other hand, Carl L. Hubbs and J. Metzelaar, 

 of the University of Michigan, who recently completed an analysis of 

 the stomach contents of smelt collected in Crystal Lake during August 

 and September, 1923, found that the present food of the smelt con- 

 sists almost exclusively of the pelagic minnow Notrovis atherinoides. 

 If in Lake Michigan the smelt preys upon the small whitefish and 

 trout that are at first pelagic,- its introduction must have important 

 consequences. We have already accumulated so much experience 

 from the introduction of foreign species of vertebrates that it would 

 seem unnecessary to caution against a continuation of the practice, 

 and it is to be hoped that no organization will in the future assume 

 the responsibility of the importation of any uncontrollable non- 

 indigenous animal. 



FISHING REGULATIONS 



APPARATUS 



Gill nets. — The States of Michigan and Illinois do not permit the 

 use of nets with a mesh smaller tlian 4}4 inches for taking trout and 

 whitefish. Wisconsin and Indiana allow a 4-inch mesh. For the 

 capture of chubs the State of Michigan allows nothing less than 

 2^-inch mesh. Other States allow a 23/2-inch minimum, and the 

 law of Wisconsin provides that nothing larger than 2%-inch may 

 be used. Formerly a 33/2-inch net was allowed for bluefins but was * 

 employed largely to take young trout. Fish other than chubs 

 may be taken in Indiana with nets having a minimum mesh of 

 2}4 inches; in Wisconsin and Illinois 2 3^ inches in the minimum 

 size; in Michigan they may be taken only with 2%-inch nets, except 

 that 23/2-inch mesh may be used for herring from November 1 to 

 December 15, or at any time if set not more than 2 fathoms below 



