668 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
in the catch under the conditions existing in the Great Lakes. Furthermore, 
we have no reason to believe that the additional nets were used for whitefish. 
If we turn now to the Canadian area of Lake Superior as shown in table 
II we see that there was no plant of whitefish fry during the first and third 
periods and during the second period a plant averaging but 700,000 annually, 
194 per square mile, or but little over one fry per pound of fish. This plant 
was all made at a single locality—Port Arthur—and during the two years 1899 and 
1900. The catch of whitefish in this Canadian area decreased from the first to 
the second period in about the same proportion as the catch on the American 
side and it continued to decrease notably in the third period. This decrease 
took place on the Canadian side while an increase was in progress on the Ameri- 
can side, and it took place in spite of the fact that the length of nets in use on 
the Canadian side was but from one-third to one-fifth that on the American 
side. During the third period the fishermen on the American side were fishing 
nearly ten times the length of nets per square mile that their Canadian brothers 
were permitted to use and were enjoying an increase in the average annual 
catch of whitefish while the Canadian fishermen were suffering from a decrease 
in the average annual catch. 
Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Huron.—The data for these waters 
are given in tables 12 and 13. The Michigan waters are those of the west 
shore of Lake Huron from Mackinaw City to Port Huron. The Canadian 
waters are, in table 12, the eastern shore of Lake Huron, including the North 
Channel, and in table 13 theGeorgian Bay. We see that on the Michigan side 
there has been a plant of from about 18,000,000 fry annually in the first period 
to nearly 30,000,000 annually in the third period. This is a plant averaging 
from 5,500 to 9,000 fry per square mile of whitefish area. In other words, 
from 36 to 58 fry have been placed in these waters for every pound of 
whitefish taken from them. The catch of whitefish has remained practi- 
cally constant, but has increased somewhat in the last period as compared 
to the second. On the Canadian side of Lake Huron there has been a com- 
paratively light plant of whitefish fry in each of the three periods, less than 
one-sixth that on the Michigan side. The catch of whitefish fell off very much 
in the second period as compared with the first, but recovered somewhat during 
the third period. If we compare the Michigan waters of Lake Huron with 
Georgian Bay (Canadian) we find that in Georgian Bay there has been com- 
paratively little planting of whitefish and this confined to the second period. 
It averages but 152 fry per square mile of whitefish area and but 1 fry per 
pound of whitefish caught. The catch of whitefish has fallen off more than 
two-thirds in the second period as compared with the first and has diminished 
still further, though slightly, in the third period. 
