GREAT LAKES COREGONIDS 



347 



On Lake Michigan there are many more ports that fish chubs than on Lake 

 Huron, but I have been able to obtain records from only three boats. Two of these 

 fish in the northern basin, and several examinations of their catches indicate that 

 they depend on the same species of chubs, the longjaw predominating. At Charlevoix 

 the records show an even average through the season until November, when the lifts 

 fall off. The Northport records indicate that the summer fishing is light (the gangs 

 were pulled in in July and August), but the November and December lifts are rela- 

 tively heavy. The records may be explained by assuming that the Charlevoix boat 

 did not find the longjaw in the spawning season in November, while the Northport 

 boat did. 



The other records are for the southern basin, where several species of chubs are 

 known to occur abundantly at times. The interesting features are the heavy lifts in 

 August, October, and November. It is not known what occasioned the increased 

 lifts in August, but in the fall the longjaw and the short- jawed chub (especially the 

 latter) are known to spawn on these grounds. In February and early March the 

 bloaters spawn here, too, but there are no figures of production for these periods. 



The various records may not be set against one another to compare the relative 

 abundance of chubs at each port. First, the nets employed by the Ontario boats are 

 3-inch, by the Indiana boats 2^-inch, and by the rest 2%-inch. The statistics are 

 not of the same years; they do not show the length of the nets operated nor the 

 period of time each net was in the water before lifting; nor is any allowance made 

 for the superior ability of the pilots of certain vessels in operating their nets. Each 

 fisherman has his own ideas as to how many leads there should be on a given piece of 

 net, how it should be seamed on the lines, at what speed the boat should run to set, 

 in what direction the gang should run, etc. The data presented are sufficient, 

 however, to give an idea of the value of these fish from the commercial point of view. 



Conservation legislators nowhere have recognized the chubs, except to regulate 

 the size of the mesh used to catch them. In spite of unrestricted fishing, the chubs 

 still hold forth, but in much diminished numbers, so far as can be learned from 

 the fishermen's statements. Unfortunately, no statistics are available for comparing 

 catches of different periods of years. Unless accurate records were available for a 

 considerable number of years on the same grounds, and unless these showed the 

 weight of the catches, the length of the nets employed, and the location of the fishing 

 grounds, no judgment could be formed as to the past and present abundance. While 

 records that answer most of these requirements are available for the last four or 

 five years, they show nothing conclusive. Every fisherman recognizes the fact that 

 one season may bring very poor fishing for various reasons, while the next may bring 

 more fish than have been known for several preceding years. Hence, average catches 

 for different periods of years long enough to eliminate annual fluctuations, and ex- 

 pressed in terms of net length, must be compared in order to determine whether 

 catches have increased or diminished over a particular area. 



No statistics of production are necessary to show that chubs are much less 

 abundant now than formerly. A few facts of the history of the industry will show 

 to what extent they have been depleted. The first chub fishermen used nets of 

 3 to 4 inch mesh. Little by little the meshes employed grew smaller as the fish grew 

 less abundant, until many of the chub fishermen are now using about the smallest 



