FISHING INDUSTRY OF THE GREAT LAKES 613 



There are still extant fishing regulations drafted in 1421 in which 

 closed seasons, reserve zones, minimum mesh, and maximum equip- 

 ment are fixed. Control over the waters relaxed, however, in 1798, 

 and various abuses crept in. In 1825 improved apparatus sup- 

 planted the primitive gear, and in 1853, when the fishing leases were 

 sold outright, the production was so enormous that fish were fed 

 to the pigs. The last good year was 1856, and thereafter the supply 

 dwindled. Drastic regulations were drafted to protect the fish, 

 and fry were planted annually, but until about 1918 it had not been 

 possible to restore the productivity of the lake. From 1918 to 1920, 

 according to a letter from Dr. G. Surbeck, Swiss fish inspector at 

 Berne, dated February 18, 1924, the production of whitefish in Lake 

 Sempach increased considerably, and it is estimated that 35,000 to 

 45,000 pounds were taken annually during this period — a total 

 probably about equal to the average annual yield of the nineteenth 

 century. Doctor Surbeck and other investigators are of the opinion, 

 however, that the wliitefish now caught is not of the same species 

 as that which originally inhabited the lake, but of a species which 

 has replaced the original form. Latterly the catches have again de- 

 clined markedly. 



The history of the Sempach fish has more than a philosophical 

 interest and teaches another lesson besides the obvious one. Our 

 experience with the bluefin of Lake Superior, which has been undis- 

 turbed for from 10 to 20 years, and of the bloater of Lake Ontario, 

 which has not been fished for in 25 years, both of which have appar- 

 ently continued to decrease in abundance, closely parallels the case 

 of this Swiss whitefish and emphasizes the danger of reducing a 

 gregarious species below certain limits. 



If, then, there is danger of exhausting the fish supply by over- 

 fishing, the production should be regulated in some manner. It is 

 generally recognized that the taking of game must be controlled 

 both by bag limits and closed seasons, and similar restrictions are 

 considered necessary to preserve the game fishes. It can not, there- 

 fore, appear illogical to urge the application of the same kind of 

 legislation to the commercial fisheries. What form such legislation 

 should take the writer can not say. Over an area so extensive as 

 that of the Great Lakes, which is influenced by such diverse climatic 

 as well as physiographic conditions, no one may expect to apply a 

 simple or uniform remedy; but, faced by the need of action, the 

 dictates of common sense will point out a way, and these directions 

 must not be ignored, even if they entail sacrifice on the part of some. 



PROPAGATION 



The work of hatching eggs of the important commercial species 

 has been carried on more vigorously than ever in recent years. The 

 output of species originally propagated has increased, and opera- 

 tions have been extended to include species previously ignored. In 

 the stocking of streams and small lakes notable success has been 

 achieved, and through making observations on conditions in such 

 relatively limited areas positive evidence of the benefit of introducing 

 fry and fingerlings has been gathered.' Unfortunately there are no 

 criteria by which we may judge the effect of propagation in the 

 Great Lakes. There areas are so extensive and the migrations and 



