and can set project priorities accordingly, and close enough to achieve the maxi- 

 mum communication of research results both verbally and through reports. 

 However, constant care must be taken to avoid being drawn into problems of 

 local rather than Province-wide priority. In agencies where research has failed 

 to resist this temptation, their programs have become more and more involved in 

 investigations of local and immediate value only, and long range planning and 

 progress has become impossible for management. 



Our present good working relationship has resulted from the following 

 practices: frequent issue of full reports and progress reports, personal communi- 

 cation between research and management specialists, an annual meeting of 

 Departmental research and management biologists; and meetings of advisory 

 committees annually or semi-annually to discuss the programs of research at each 

 of our Great Lakes stations. These advisory committees are made up of sportsmen, 

 commercial fishermen, and management and research staffs from both field and 

 head office. Consideration is being given to formation of a similar advisory 

 committee to consider the recently expanded sport fish research program. 



During 1961 no major changes in program, staff or facilities occurred in 

 either the Great Lakes or in the Game Fish studies. Minor improvements in the 

 program included a shift of emphasis from the blue pickerel of Lake Erie to 

 the smelt which has become much more important. The speckled trout and 

 smallmouth bass units which began operations in 1960 made good starts on their 

 programs. Plans have been consolidated for the establishment of an additional 

 game fish research unit to be concerned with the yellow pickerel when staff and 

 funds become available. 



Lake Superior 



Under the terms of the Federal-Provincial Agreement for Ontario Fisheries, 

 the major research effort on Lake Superior continues to be a responsibility of the 

 Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Our staff continued to work closely with 

 Board staff to ensure that results of the program are readily accessible to man- 

 agement staff of our department. Particular attention was given to: assessment 

 of the current status of natural lake trout stocks; to the assessment of survival 

 of lake trout stocks planted in the rehabilitation program; and to continued 

 measurement of the level of sea lamprey predation on lake trout. 



As was reported last year, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on which 

 this Department, and this Section, are represented, completed the first application 

 of larvicide to all known lamprey-producing streams flowing into Lake Superior. 

 Since this experimental control involves stream treatment, one year class of 

 lampreys, those in the open lake at the time of treatment, was not affected. This 

 year class returned to the streams to spawn in somewhat less than normal numbers 

 in the spring of 1961. If that first treatment should prove to be as effective as 

 we hope, then there should be no year class in the lake at present and none to 

 return to the streams to spawn in the spring of 1962. The first indications that 

 the 1962 spawning year class was at least very small, came in the latter part 

 of the 1961 fishing season when it was noted that the scarring rate by lampreys 

 on both lake trout and whitefish was down considerably from the level of previous 

 years. It is too much, of course, to anticipate elimination of this predator, but 

 if the spawning runs are in the order of 5,000 adults in the spring of 1962 as 

 compared to the 40,000 to 60,000 of previous years, it will seem that initial 

 success has been achieved, and the experiment should continue. The spring of 

 1962 is a critical period for lake trout in the Great Lakes. 



259 



