GREAT LAKES FISHERIES 



305 



Future prospects for the fisheries appear to be fairly encouraging. Biologists have reported 

 that the hatch of white bass in 1970 was the best since 1957, and that the hatch and survival of 

 yellow pike was also good. The yellow perch hatch was not as good as biologists had anticipated 

 but was better than any year class since 1965. 



Lake Huron . Landings of 2.4 million pounds were 17 percent less than in 1969, and the 

 smallest production on record. The harvest of most major species — carp, chubs, white bass, white- 

 fish, yellow perch, and yellow pike — declined sharply. However, catfish landings of 225,600 

 pounds increased 85 percent compared with 1969. 



Lake Michigan . Landings of 53.1 million pounds worth $3.8 million increased 5.6 million 

 pounds and $790, 700 compared with 1969. The harvest was second only to the record 59-million- 

 pound landings of 1967. 



Lake Michigan accounted for 74 percent of the total Great Lakes landings and 59 percent of 

 the value. Alewife landings of 33.5 million pounds were 4.2 million more than in 1969, and were 

 63 percent of the Lake Michigan production. Compared with 1969, landings of chubs (9.6 million 

 pounds) increased 5 percent, coho salmon (2.2 million) increased 96 percent, and whitefish (1.7 

 million pounds) increased 25 percent. Whitefish landings were the best since 1952. The combined 

 landings of chubs and whitefish were only 21 percent of the total harvest for the lake, but their 

 combined value ($3.5 million) was 71 percent of the total value. Lake trout, the high-priced spe- 

 cies virtually eliminated by the sea lam^ey, yielded landings of more than 87,000 pounds — the 

 best harvest since 1949. The apparent rehabilitation of this fishery has resulted from effective 

 lamprey control, restricted fishing, and restocking of the fishery resource. 



Lake Superior . Landings of 5 million pounds were 230,600 pounds less than in 1969, and 

 the smallest harvest since the turn of the century. Since 1961, production has trended steadily 

 downward--principally because of a marked decrease in landings of lake herring, for many years 

 the mainstay of the Lake Superior fishery. Lake herring landings were 1.4 million pounds — 40 per- 

 cent less than in 1969, and far below the record 17.8 million pounds taken in 1941. Lake trout, 

 another important species, continued a sharp decline that began in 1959. Lake trout landings of 

 188,000 were 11 percent less than in 1969. In 1970, for the first time, smelt became the leading 

 species in Lake Superior with a production of 1.6 million pounds--almost 50 percent greater than 

 in the previous year. 



Research . The four NMFS vessels, Cisco , Kaho, Musky II , and Siscowet continued to support 

 research studies on the Great Lakes . Research continued on the alewife population explosion, 

 pesticide concentrations in fish, and botulism organisms. 



Sea lamprey control . The final count of sea lampreys captured at the 16 Lake Superior barriers was 

 5,69 2--compared with 9, 234 in 1969. These barriers are used to assess the effectiveness of 1am- 

 pricides in the control of larval sea lampreys. Stream treatments are continuing on Lakes Huron 

 and Michigan. 



Other information . Seasonal variations in fish landings in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin can be 

 ascertained from monthly landings bulletins issued currently in cooperation with the fishery de- 

 partments of these States. Additional specific data on Great Lakes fisheries may be found in the 

 daily, monthly, and annual reports published by NMFS's Fishery Market News Service Office in 

 Chicago, 111. 



Acknowledgments . The following organizations halped collect the data appearing in this section: 

 Dominion Bureau of Statistics of Canada; Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Fish- 

 eries; Indiana Department of Conservation, Divisionof Fish and Game, Sectionof Fish Management; 

 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Great Lakes Fisheries; Minnesota 

 Department of Conservation, Division of Game and Fish, Section of Fisheries; New York State De- 

 partment of Environmental Conservation, Great Lakes Fisheries Station; Ohio Department of Natural 

 Resources, Division of Wildlife, Section of Fish Management; Pennsylvania Fish Commission; and 

 the State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources, Fish Management Division. 



