(6°) PLANS FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES « «@ From BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Volume XXVIII, 1908 Proceedings of the Fourth International Fishery. Congress: \: Washington, 1908 ey a NE A SR ESET EE ER NRE A a AAO A EERE ESSERE SEER GRRE LEE Cae) WASHINGTON : : : : : : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : : : : : : 1910 seas ge SA ipo: Book __ Ve -T\ 8 7 in 9 hire ty say . As & ¥ 4 Salli 7 in : oe : ia PLANS FOR PROMOTING THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES « »# From BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, Volume XXVIII, 1908 Proceedings of the Fourth International Fishery Congress : .: Washington, 1908 Pages > By 5. We Dewnmg . = =. 2 = « 627-653 He-By- Frank N./Clark-- 4... . . » » '635-642 Ill. By Paul Reighard . . . . . . . 643-684 Discusstauian 3) oc, 2 Planted from Mackinaw City in waters adjacent to those of the north shore. TaBLE 4.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND ToTaL LENGTH oF NETS IN USE IN MIcHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN FROM LITTLE Point AU SABLE TO THE INDIANA BORDER FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Total gill and Catch, in = Catch, in + Years. Plant of fry. 2 pound nets, in | pounds per | pounds. fathoms. net-fathom. 8. 500,000 30, 615 497,371 0. 061 6, 000, 000 47,100 600, 828 -078 14, 500,000 88,875 424, 482 . 209 2,000,000 50,650 368, 447 .136 2.000,000 39, 850 390, 638 . 102 6,000, 000 32, 783 237,662 138 24,150 261,736 082 27,500 306, 860 078 27,850 506,925 ~054 29,350 560, 291 +052 26,900 624,520 ~043 38, 400 598,690 .064 69, 200 691, 260 . 100 " 185, 200 858, 694 -215 setae Basha ee Bs ES A ee See ae ee sees 337,600 832,051 405 a¥rom the United States Fish Commission Report for 1887, p. 84, we find that the catch in this area in 1885 was 538,817 pounds. b At Michigan City, Ind., very near the Michigan boundary line. 664 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. TABLE 5.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND ToTaL LENGTH oF NETS IN USE IN MICHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN FROM MANISTEE TO FRANKFORT @ FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. : Total gill and Vears. Plant of fry. Catch pound nets, in Po & fathoms. 1892_ 8 500,000 222,600 162. 706 1893- 6, 000, 000 255,000 I51I.090 1894--_- II, 000,000 72,700 138, 483 1895-_- 8.000, 000 78,150 150, 447 1896_ 6,000, 000 109, 800 181, 966 1897- 6.500, 000 145, 200 80, 583 ESOS tea ee SR ea a es ee Ne Lee ee ae 155,200 138,552 T8992 = 2 See ae ee ae ee ee Sees San | eee ae 140,750 134,490 1900- 161, 200 187.551 TOOPS = sc Sek SoS Bees ke 5 Fe hs Se ea se Fas Jee eee ese ase 155,200 153,780 1902_ a 261,000 195,472 1903- = 172,600 210,240 1904- ai 226,000 249,840 I905_ a 190, 600 296,753 TOOO%e == So ae a ee ee oe ee Ee oe ee eae 205,000 262,020 Catch in pounds per net-fathom. a¥From United States Fish Commission Report for 1887, p. 84, we find the catch at Frankfort alone for 1885 was 885,504 pounds. TABLE 6.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND TOTAL LENGTH OF NETS IN USE IN MICHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE HURON FROM MAcKINAW City TO PoRT HURON FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Years. Plant of fry. 21,750,000 16, 640, 000 16,050,000 15,500,000 19, 850, 000 23.440,000 5,600, 000 12,000, 000 34, 200, 000 26,000, 000 42,000, 000 30, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 25,000, 000 20,000, 000 : Total gill and Catch, in can pound nets, in | pounds per (Be). fathoms. net-fathom. 555,350 £88,019 0.94 535,750 528, 566 I.or 396,350 505,497 -78 357,317 657,255 +54 659, 234 347,799 1.79 525,860 435,345 I.20 387,740 537,704 +72 482,980 622, 686 277, 403,020 766, 278 ~52 600, 620 873,896 - 68 639, 600 843, 691 SAT 722,560 1,050, 667 . 68 618, 960 1,056,170 -58 329, 260 I, 235,910 - 26 265,320 -34 TABLE 7.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND TOTAL LENGTH OF NETS IN USE IN CANADIAN WarTERS OF LAKE Huron, INCLUDING NoRTH CHANNEL, FOR EACH OF INCLUSIVE.@ THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, Cateh an Total gill and Catch, in Years. Plant of fry. aI pound nets, in | pounds per pee TSS? fathoms. net-fathom. b 3,000, 000 2,639,156 391,067 6.74 3,000, 000 2,278, 300 679.395 3-35 3,000, 000 I, 504,430 741.135 2.03 3,000, 000 771,475 535.670 1.44 3,000, 000 I,091,950 598, 380 1.82 3,000,000 740,041 240,525 3.08 3,300,000 904, 180 683. 480 1.32 4,000,000 864, 240 335,772 2.57 4, 000, 000 I, 255.075 554.045 2.26 4,300, 000 935,003 471.732 1.97 5,000, 000 1, 181, 268 868, 137 1.36 4.000, 000 831, 610 659, 835 1.26 3,000,000 1,578,790 650, 630 2.42 4.000, 000 739.410 824,610 89 4,000, 000 922, 800 709, 440 Tuga @ Exclusive of Georgian Bay. b In the absence of exact information for the years 1892 and 1893 the plants of these years are assumed to have been the same as in the years immediately following and are so entered here. emai ame rs THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 665 TABLE 8.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND ToraL LENGTH OF NETS IN USE IN THE WATERS OF GEORGIAN BAY FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. | - Total gilland | Catch, in Years. | Plant of fry. | peer pound nets, in| pounds per | evi fathoms. net-fathom 3,635,700 40,000 90.89 1,601,000 773,500 2.06 I, 199,300 581,250 2.06 642,030 I, 071,000 -59 584,750 620, 650 -90 311,995 528, 300 -59 340,750 653,400 -52 822,520 615,071 1.33 274, 180 419,450 - 65 501, 842 326,950 1.53 465,590 361, 030 1.28 467,080 844, 100 JB 470,670 441,650 1.06 333,620 443,550 +75 379,950 486, 190 | -78 TABLE 9.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND ToTaL LENGTH OF NETS IN USE IN CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE ERIE FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. (Catehiin Total gill and Catch, in Years. Plant of fry.4 a pound nets, in| pounds per Se fathoms. net-fathom. 4 34, 500,000 311,950 32,850 9.49 b 58, 000, 000 256, 240 49,540 5.17 37,000, 000 153,033 73,660 2.08 61, 000, 000 148,010 84,410 1.75 49, 000, 000 126, 300 86,990 1.44 60,000, 000 270, 290 92,360 2.92 59, 000, 000 245,305 90, 480 anit 60, 000, 000 431,022 107,910 3.99 64, 000, 000 401,425 191,915 2.09 60, 000, 000 523,306 141,460 3.69 77,000, 000 449, 886 133,411 3-37 62,000, 000 303, 280 169, 250 zr. 79 44,000, 000 360, 800 228,535 57) 72,000,000 304, 400 236,200 1.29 55,000, 000 359,100 268, 480 Tass @ Includes Detroit River. + In the absence of exact information for the years 1892 and 1893 the plants of these years are assumed to have been the same for Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, and Lake Ontario as in the years immediately following, and the remaining plant was assigned to Lake Erie. TABLE 10.—ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND TOTAL LENGTH OF NETS IN USE IN CANA- DIAN WATERS OF LAKE ONTARIO FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Catehead Total gill and Catch, in Years. Plant of fry. a pound nets, in | pounds per pounds: fathoms. net-fathom. 23, 800, 000 489,900 144,775 3.38 23,800,000 369,570 126, 730 2.91 3,800, 400 299,930 158, 705 1.88 4, 800, 000 126,650 173,645 Ae 4, 800, 000 170,350 255,100 . 66 4, 800, cco 292, 460 273,670 I.06 4,900, 000 410,420 233,810 1.75 5,050,000 259,815 168,155 1.54 4, 800, 000 129,126 231,405 AGE 4,550,000 133,192 156, 480 .85 3,000,000 77,071 153,920 .50 3,000, 000 96,980 186, 352 ae 4,000, 000 190, 650 221,512 . 86 4, 000, 000 472,770 249, 820 1.89 4,000,000 354,000 258,792 ci) @ In the absence of exact information for the plants in 1892 and 1893 it has been assumed to be the same from each hatchery as in the years immediately following, the total plant remaining constant, and is so set down here. 666 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. An examination of any one of these tables shows great fluctuation in the annual catch of whitefish, which may increase or diminish nearly 50 per cent between one season and the next, and in some cases varies 300 per cent between successive years. The cause of these annual fluctuations is to be found, no doubt, in part in the weather conditions, which permit almost continuous fishing in one season while they may greatly interfere with the fishing in the succeeding season. But these fluctuations may also be due in part to some feature of the habits of the whitefish themselves which we do not at all understand. It would be possible, by terminating almost any one of these tables at a suitable point, to convey the impression that there has been a very great falling off in the catch of whitefish in any one of the lakes. Thus if table 2 should terminate with the year 1902 it would show apparently a steady decrease in the catch of whitefish in the Canadian waters of Lake Superior and a like impression may be gained with respect to any other one of the lakes by terminating the table at the appropriate year. DISCUSSION OF AVERAGE CATCH AND PLANT FOR CERTAIN AREAS. It is evident from an examination of tables 1 to 10 that no conclusion of value is to be reached by comparing the whitefish production of the Great Lakes for individual years. The annual fluctuations, whatever may be their cause, vitiate any conclusions that may be drawn from such comparisons. It is further evident that any comparisons should take into account the relative whitefish areas of the lakes compared, and should consider both the catch and the plant with reference to these areas. In tables 11 to 18 an attempt has been made to avoid the errors just men- tioned by comparing the average catch for the three five-year periods from 1892 to 1906, inclusive. In the first column is entered the average annual catch in pounds for each of these five-year periods. In the second column is given the average catch per square mile of whitefish area, while in the third column is stated the average catch per fathom of net used. In the same tables are given the plants of whitefish; the annual average for each five-year period, the average per square mile of whitefish area, and the average per pound of whitefish caught. The same tables give the average annual number of fathoms of nets used for each period and the fathoms of nets per square mile. By nets is to be here again under- stood all nets used in the areas in question, not merely nets in which whitefish were taken. Not much value can therefore be attached to that part of the table which deals with nets. Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Superior.—In table 11 the data for the Canadian and Michigan waters of Lake Superior are brought together for comparison. The Michigan whitefish area of 2,400 square miles extends from the St. Marys River westward to the Wisconsin boundary line, as indicated on the map of Lake Superior. It does not include Isle Royal for the reason that THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 667 this offers an isolated whitefish area unconnected with that to the north or south of it, and for the further reason that the statistical returns from this remote area show such extraordinary fluctuations in catch, plant, and amount of nets used as to make them of little value. The Canadian side of Lake Superior shows a whitefish area of 3,600 square miles, stretching from the St. Marys River westward to the Minnesota boundary. On the Michigan shore there has been a very large annual plant of whitefish fry, averaging 11,000,000 in the first period, 22,000,000 in the second period, and 15,000,000 in the third period. This amounts to about 5,000 fry planted annually per square mile of area during the first period, 9,000 during the second period, and 6,000 during the third period. For each pound of fish taken out there has been planted during the first period an annual average of 5 fry, during the second period an annual aver- age of about 19, and during the third period an annual average of more than 12. These values would be greatly increased if they were made to include the Wis- consin plants, which are indicated by the footnote in table 2, but not included in the calculations in table rr. TABLE 11.—COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN MICHIGAN AND CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE SUPERIOR FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE.® Michigan waters, whitefish area 2,400 square miles, Catch. Plant. Nets. Years. Total Pounds Pounds Fry per Fry per Total Fathoms Sunde per square | per net- Total fry. square | pound fathonic per square PY mile. fathom. mile. caught. : mile. = | = — 1892—-1896______- 2,117,000 88r 3.22 | II,057,000 | 4,607 5.2 703,300 293 1897—1901______- I. 169,000 487 1.58 | 21, 858,000 | 9,178 18.8 750,300 312 1902—1906_____.. I, 193,900 497 -9I | 15,268,900 | 6, 362 12.8 I, 231,300 513 Canadian waters, whitefish area 3,600 square miles. 1892=1896- --_--_ I, 123,000 312 Cerf) lo some eee a eee sees] Peer see I51I,500 42 4897—190r_._--_- 591.000 164 2.48 | 700,000 | 194 1.2 243,800 67 woo02—ro06-- =~ 462,000 128 Cl oe ee Pee Se inesuaearee 206,000 57 } | @ Exclusive of Isle Royal. If we compare the catches over this area for the three periods, we see that while there was a decline of nearly a million pounds in the annual average between the first period and the second, there was a slight increase in the third period as compared with the second. The whitefish production of this area is therefore not decreasing; it is increasing. This increase has been accompanied by a considerable increase in the length of nets used, but as will appear in another place in this paper there seems to be good reason for the belief that an increase in the length of nets used is not sufficient to account for the increase 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—tThe data fan 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 the Georgian 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. THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 669 TABLE 12.—COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN MICHIGAN AND CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE HURON FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Michigan waters, whitefish area 3,200 square miles.@ | Catch. Plant. | Nets. (= Years. Total Pounds Pounds Total Fry per Fry per Total Fathoms wads per square} per net- = square pound patiianic per square po 5 mile. fathoms. ° mile. caught. mile. 1892-1896_-___-_-| 501,000 158 ©.99 | 17,958,000 5.559 36 525.400 164 1897-1901 ---___-_| 480,000 148 -79 | 20, 258,000 6 271 42 | 847, 100 264 1902-1906_---__-| 515,000 159 58 29, 400,000 9, IOI 58 | 99I, 700 309 | I | Canadian waters, whitefish area 3,000 square miles.b 1892-1896__----- | 1,657.000 552 3-07 3,000,000 I,000 1.8 589. 100 196 1896-1901___-_--| 940,000 313 2.24 3.720,000 I. 240 3.9 457, 100 150 I902-1906_______| 1,051,000 350 1.45 4,000,000 E333 3.8 742,500 244 | @ From Mackinaw City to Port Huron. +b North Channel and Lake Huron exclusive of Georgian Bay. TABLE 13.—SHOWING THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN GEORGIAN Bay WATERS FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892-1906, INCLUSIVE. Whitefish area 2,700 square miles. Catch.) Plant. Nets. Years. Pounds Pounds Fry per Fry per Fathoms Total | Total Total per square} per net- | square pound per square pounds. mile, fathom. fry mile. caught. fathoms. mile. 1892-1896___----| 1,535,000 568 bs i i a ee ol ee eee 617,300 228 1S97—190T) ooo ee 450.000 166 92 410,000 | 152 | r | 508, 600 188 T902—1906" = esses 423,000 156 pti eae as ame laa | Nee Se ete 515,300 I9I | We appear to have disclosed in Lakes Superior and Huron a relation between the plant of whitefish fry and the catch of a subsequent period of such a sort that when the plant has been considerable the catch has either been maintained or has increased, while when the plant has been small the catch has usually dimin- ished. ‘here are no statistics available which enable us to compare for long periods the data for the two sides of the same lake, except those for Lakes Superior and Huron, but it will be of interest to compare with these two lakes Lakes Erie and Ontario and parts of Lake Michigan. Canadian waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.—The only statistics avail- able for continuous periods are those of the Canadian sides of these lakes, but these are of especial interest, because they enable us to compare Canadian waters in which there has been relatively heavy planting of whitefish fry with those in which the plant has been light. The Canadian whitefish areas of Lake Erie, ~ 670 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. including both the eastern and western portions, are 2,100 square miles. For each of the five-year periods considered the plant on this area has been enor- mous—from about 28,000 to about 30,000 fry per square mile of whitefish area, or from 139 to 230 fry per pound of whitefish caught. At the same time the catch has increased, nearly doubling in the second period as compared with the first and then remaining practically constant during the third period. In Lake Ontario the area of whitefish ground on the Canadian side has been estimated at 1,400 square miles. The plant per square mile has been about one-tenth that in Lake Erie, while the catch has diminished appreciably, though not greatly. TABLE 14.—SHOWING THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKES ERIE AND ONTARIO FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Lake Erie, whitefish area 2,100 square miles. Catch. Plant. Nets. Bicats: Total Pounds Pounds Seite Fry per | Fry per Total Fathoms per square} per net- otal fry. square pound per square pounds. mile. fathom. tile. caught. fathoms. mile. 1892-1896 _ ____— 199,000 94 3-98 | 45.900, 000 21,857 230 65,500 31 Y897—190¥ = ===> 354,000 168 3-08 | 60,500,000 28,857 171 124, 800 59 LOO2—1900— = — 355,000 169 1.87 | 62,000, 000 29,523 175 207, 200 98 Lake Ontario, whitefish area 1,400 square miles. T89a—T690— = oe) 291,000 207 1.91 4, 200,000 3,000 14 171,800 122 ES Oy COON eee 245,000 175 I.15 4,820,000 3,443 19 212,700 152 1902-1906. ______ 238, 000 170 I.02 3, 600, 000 2,571 15 214,000 153 Unfortunately, we have no statistics of the catch of whitefish for the Ameri- can side of either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario for any continuous period of years, so we are unable to make comparisons with the Canadian side. In table 22 there is shown the annual catch and plant in the whole of these lakes for the years 1899 and 1903, the only years for which statistics are available for the catch in which the true whitefish is separated from related forms in American waters. The statistics of the catch need not detain us here, but those of the plant are interesting since they show that for the first of these years the total plant in Lake Erie from all sources, Canadian and American, was about 197,000,000 fry, while the plant in Lake Ontario for the same year was less than one-tenth as great. In 1903 the plant in Lake Erie was still nearly four times that in Lake Ontario. Not only is there this very great difference in the plant in these two lakes, a difference which exists in other years also, but it is extremely probable that the Lake Erie plant on the American side affects the catch on the Canadian side. The whitefish area of Lake Erie is practically continuous for the eastern THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 671 part of the lake and continuous in a nearly separate area for the western part of the lake. Any plants therefore on either side of the lake might well produce fish that would make their way to the opposite shore. In interpreting table 14 it is therefore to be taken into account that the plant affecting the Canadian catch is probably much greater than that entered in the table and would prob- ably be more correctly represented by values similar to those entered in table 18. On the other hand, both the actual and the effective plants in Lake Ontario are very much less than in Lake Erie. We see thus in the Canadian waters of Lake Erie a very great increase in the production of whitefish correlated with very large plants of fry. In Lake Ontario we see a reduction in whitefish production correlated with a moderate plant of fry, a plant which is, for unit area, about half that of the Michigan waters of Lake Superior for the same periods. Restricted areas of Lake Michigan.—In tables 15 and 16 there are brought together the data of catch, plant, and nets used in certain restricted areas of Lake Michigan. The data for the catch are all taken from the records of the Michigan Fish Commission, while those of the plant are published in the reports of the Michigan Fish Commission and the United States Bureau of Fisheries. The areas selected are as follows: (1) An area designated in table 15 as the “north shore’ of Lake Mich- igan comprises the whitefish grounds from the Strait of Mackinaw westward to the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary in Lake Michigan. ‘The eastern limit of this area is therefore well defined, but at its western limit it is broadly continuous with the waters of the State of Wisconsin. It contains 800 square miles, as shown on the map of Lake Michigan. The plant of whitefish fry in this area in the three successive five-year periods has been from 7,000 to 9,000 per square mile and from 5 tog per pound of fish caught. At the same time the catch in round numbers has been, in successive periods, 800,000, 950,000, 1,200,000. Here we have again a greatly increased catch correlated with a large and intensive plant. (2) An area designated in the table as the “southeast”? Michigan shore, comprises the whitefish grounds from Little Point Au Sable south to the Indiana- Michigan boundary. At its northern limit this area is nearly separated from the whitefish area to the north of it, but at its southern end it is broadly contin- uous with the Indiana waters of Lake Michigan. These waters, have, however, for a long time yielded very few whitefish, so that the area in question may be regarded as practically limited by barren waters at its lower end. Its area is 300 square miles. For the first period this area received a plant of 22,000 fry annually per square mile, an average of 125 per pound of fish caught. In the second period the plant was reduced to an average of about 7,000 annually, or 68 per pound of fish caught. The latter averages are based on a total which includes a plant of 4,000,000 made in rgor at Michigan City, Ind., just beyond the Michigan border. If this plant be excluded the figures for the second period are reduced 40 per cent. Here again we have a very large increase in the catch 672 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. correlated with a very large and intensive plant. The catch of the third period exceeds that of the second more than fivefold. The number of whitefish appears, however, not to have increased in the period immediately followi: g the greatest activity in planting, for while the plant of the first period was very great the catch of the succeeding period showed a decrease to little more than one-half that of the preceding period. This is possibly to be explained by the fact that in the nineties this area was considered to be nearly depleted of white- fish, and fishing for them was prosecuted with much less vigor than before. The number of fathoms of nets in use fell off, and it is probable that the nets set for whitefish fell off still more. It seems, therefore, probable that the whitefish may have begun to increase during the second period, but that this fact was not known to the fishermen until well into the third period. In other words, it is probable that the catch did not increase until some years after the whitefish themselves had increased. A glance at table 4 shows that this increase in the catch became noticeable in 1903. TABLE 15.—SHOWING THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN MICHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN (THE NORTH SHORE AND THE SOUTHEAST SHORE) FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. North shore, whi? >fish area 800 square miles. & Catch. Plant. Nets. Years. Pounds per Pounds per | Fry per Fry per Fathoms Total Total anes square net- Total fry. | square pound rathonis per square P ; mile. fathom. | mile. caught. . mile. iG 2 | | 1892-1896__--__- 791,000 988 1.99 7,177,000 | 8,971 9 387, 100 459 1897-1901 -_---__ 942,000 1,177 1. 83 5,908,000 | 7,385 6 519, 600 649 1902—-1906_____-- I, 183,000 1,477 1.39 5,800, 000 | 7,250 5 841,800 I,052 | t Southeast Michigan shore, whitefish area 300 square miles. 1892-1896 -______ 52,000 170 0.117 6, 600, 000 22,000 125 456,300 I,52r 1897-1901 __ =< 29,000 96 | o81 2,000,000 6,666 | 68 374,700 I, 249 1902-1906. __--__ 132,000 440 165 | | ee ae 721,000 2,403 4 North shore, from the Wisconsin border to the Strait of Mackinaw (excluding the Strait of Mackinaw). > Southeast shore, from Little Point Au Sable south to the Indiana border. (3) The Manistee-Frankfort area is an apparently isolated area of 90 square miles lying off the cities of those names. The data for this area are shown in table 16 (for annual data see table 5). Here we have a plant of fry which for the area is enormous, nearly 90,000 per square mile in the first period and nearly 60,000 per square mile during the second period. There was no plant during the third period. The catch has risen during the fifteen years from 128,000 pounds per square mile in the first period to 152,000 in the second and 211,000 in the third. Here again we have a correlation of heavy planting with increased yield of fish. THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 673 TABLE 16.—SHOWING THE AVERAGE CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH IN MICHIGAN WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN FROM MANISTEE TO FRANKFORT, INCLUSIVE, FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS 1892 TO 1906, INCLUSIVE. Whitefish area, 90 square miles. | Catch. Plant. Nets. | | 7 Years. | Total Pounds per |Pounds per mean | Fry per | Fry Per Total Fathoms | square net- otalfry. | square | poun per square | pounds. mile. fathom. | mile. | caught. fathoms mile. 1892-1896__-_-_- | 128, 000 I, 422 0. 80 7,900,000 87,777 | 62 156,900 I, 743 1897—190T- —--._- | 152,000 1, 688 1.16 5,300, 000 58, 888 35 138,900 1,543 I902-1906____-__ | 211,000 2,344 Attin Se Se AS =| eee oe 242,900 2,498 | PRODUCTION COMPARED WITH INTENSITY OF PLANT. The data that have been presented seem to show that wherever, whether in American or Canadian waters, there has been a large plant of whitefish fry per unit area (20,000 in at least one period) this is correlated with a considerably increased average yield of adult fish per unit area in one or another period (Man- istee and Frankfort and southeast Michigan areas of Lake Michigan, Canadian waters of Lake Erie); wherever there has been a moderate plant of fry per unit area (5,000 to 10,000 per square mile) this is correlated with a moderately increased yield of adult fish per unit area in one or another period or by a practically stationary yield (north shore of Lake Michigan, Michigan waters of Lake Huron from Port Huron to Mackinaw City, Michigan waters of Lake Superior); wher- ever there has been a small plant of whitefish fry per unit area (less than about 3,500) or no plant, this is correlated with a diminished yield of adult fish per unit area (Canadian waters of Lakes Superior, Ontario, and Huron and Georgian Bay, except for a slight increase in Lake Huron from second to third period). CONCLUSIONS AS TO EFFECT OF PROPAGATION. The result reached in this section is expressed in another form in tables 17 and 17a, in which the whitefish areas already discussed are arranged in the order of the intensity of the plant made on them per unit area. Arranged in this way the series falls into three groups. The first, including the Manistee and Frankfort area, the southeast Michigan shore, and the Canadian waters of Lake Erie, comprises areas which have in at least one of the three periods received plants of at least 20,000 per square mile. The increase or decrease in the catch of each area of this group is shown for the second and third periods in the right-hand column in percentages of the catch compared with that of the preceding period. Positive values indicate an increase in catch, negative values a decrease. These percentages are of considerable amount and are positive in every case but one; the catch for the southeast Michigan shore is less for the second period than for the first (43 per cent), but it increases again enormously in passing from the second period to the third (350 per cent). B. B. F. 1908—43 674 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. The second group of areas as arranged in table 17 includes the north shore of Lake Michigan, the west shore of Lake Huron from Mackinaw City to Port Huron, and the south shore (Michigan waters) of Lake Superior. In this group the intensity of the plant of whitefish fry per square mile varies from about 5,000 to about 10,000. But two negative percentages appear in the table opposite these areas; these are both in passing from the first to the second period, and both are reversed in passing from the second to the third period, where they become positive. The third group of areas includes the north shore of Lake Ontario, the east or Canadian shore of Lake Huron, the north shore of Lake Superior, and Georgian Bay. The plant per unit area has been largest in Lake Ontario, but has not there exceeded 3,600 per square mile. It diminishes progressively in the order in which the areas are named above, and becomes practically nothing in Lake Superior and Georgian Bay. The percentage column shows no positive value, while the sum of the negative values is very large. TABLE 17.—SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE AVERAGE PLANT OF WHITEFISH FRY PER UNIT AREA IN CERTAIN WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES, TO THE AVERAGE CATCH IN THE SAME UNIT AREA FOR THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS. 1892-1896. Per cent of in- | | crease (plus \) Plant per’ | Catch, monnds, eee de- : : per square crease (minus Whitefish areas. saute mms Me mile (to nearest} values) of each : Io). period over the | preceding period. IManisteeand (htranitonts = ae ae a ee eee 87, 800 I frac Erie (Canadian) = 2) See eee ee eee 21,900 Lake Michigan (southeast shore) 22,000 [Hee Mrehivani(tHoOLun Shore) ae ae eee 9,000 2 |{Lake Huron (west shore) --_-------------- 5,600 |Cake Superior (south shore) - - 4,600 Lake Ontario (north shore) _ 3,000 Lake Huron (east shore) - - I, 000 3:/l\Wake Superior: (northishore) 2-62 ee ne ee ee Se | ee Georgian Bay 1897-1901. \(Manisteetand brankfort. == =e em ee a wee een 58,900 1,690 + 18 Ty sieakeroriel (Canadian) eens a ee ae ee ae ae 28,900 168 + 78 |\Lake Michigan (southeast shore) - - - - - ---_--------------------- 6,700 96 — 43 Batre ircehivag (mort SuOKe) mse a eee 7,300 I, 200 + ar 2 {rake Einron (west ShOle) = = a 6,300 148 —- 6 ieee Sn Peron (Got CEISHOLe)) mates ee 9,200 490 — 44 hate Ontario (north shore) =. 524-5) — = 3,500 175 = a) \)Lake Huron (east shore) _ -- I, 200 310 — As 3 |) Lake Superior (north shore) 194 164 — 47 GeorgiansBayiee ee ee 152 166 — 70 1902-1906. Manistee ATIC Rena ck OT Be a ne ale a ee ret 2,344 + 28 re PAPA RM otol (error) See Se ee eS 169 + .5 |Lake Michigan (southeast shore) 440 +350 [Lake IOC otfeeehel (Guley eel Ale) @a) je ee en See ole = , I, 500 + 25 oy WPibed cate breast (fa HO CD) ee eee ee ee eee ; 160 an iS) lence Sitperiors (Gotti SUOTE) meee ; 500 sr Rake\Ontarnio) (north shore)/2_=-—-- 5 == . 170 = 2 )Lake Huron (east shore) - -- ----------- F 350 — 1 3 |\Lake Superior (north shore) __ 128 — 22 Georgian ay eee ee ee ee 156 —- 6 THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 675 TABLE 17€2.—SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN THE AVERAGE PLANT OF WHITEFISH FRY PER SQUARE MILE PER PERIOD AND PER POUND CAUGHT PER PERIOD TO THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE CATCH OF EACH PERIOD OVER THE PRECEDING PERIOD. | Average per- | centage of in- | Average plant | Average plant eae (+) or | persquare | per pound Seat Me ) Whitefish areas. mile per area caught per CU PES 2 for five-year area for five- pass Dede | periods. year periods. (1892-1896) and of period 3 | over period 2. [Manistee andhrankiottea esos i 2s eee eee es ec eke eee | I |\Lake Erie (Canadian) --__---____ 28, 000 96 @+72.0 Lake Michigan (southeast shore) - Lake Michigan (north shore) ___-~- 2 {rake Huron (west shore) -____---_ aoe 10,000 32 + 0.7 Bakesuperior (south Shore) -2 == = =<-- scenes ase oc Sao aaee Hale Ontario) (tlortin SHOLe ye ee ek ee eee akevktwron (east shore) )-.2 2 2s222 5-252 aes Soe a te teen 3 |)Lake Superior (north Shore)_____________________- | Sethe) I —26.0 (Sten inky. See Sie ESE See aTf we exclude Lake Michigan, southeast shore, on account of the phenomenal increase of 350 per cent inthe third period, this value becomes +31, but there appears to be no valid reason for such exclusion. In table 17a is shown the relation of the average intensity of plant of each of the three groups of areas to the average catch in the same areas. The first column contains the average of the plant for the areas of each group for the three periods expressed in fry per square mile and the second column contains a like average expressed in fry per pound of whitefish caught. Thus the value 28,000 in the first column of table 17a is obtained by adding all the numbers in the first column of table 17 opposite the areas of the first group and dividing the sum by 9, and the remaining values in columns one and two of table 17a are obtained in like manner. The percentages in the third column of table 17a are obtained by adding for each group of areas the percentages given in the third column of table 17 and dividing by 6 in the case of groups 1 and 2 and by 8 in the case of group 3. It thus appears that, on the average, a plant of approximately 30,000 per square mile of whitefish area or of 100 per pound of whitefish caught is cor- related, under existing conditions, with an increase of 72 percent inthe catch; a plant of 10,000 and 32 with a practically stationary whitefish product; a plant of 2,200 and 11 with a decrease of 26 per cent in the whitefish product. This appears to the writer to amount to a mathematical demonstration of the efficacy of the planting of whitefish and to afford a measure of the intensity of plant necessary. This measure applies, of course, to present conditions; as the whitefish production increases it is possible that a plant of less than roo per pound will suffice to maintain the fisheries. In table 22 is given the total plant and catch for the Great Lakes and from this appears the average intensity of plant for 1903, the last year for which data are available for the catch. The intensity of the plant per pound caught is here 676 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. shown to be approximately 50. It appears therefore that the plant should be annually at least twice what it was in 1903. If the writer remembers correctly the cost of producing whitefish fry has been in the recent experience of the United States Bureau of Fisheries about two cents per 1,000 in Michigan. At this rate the cost of planting per pound of fish caught would be about 2 mills. This correlation of an increased output of whitefish with a large intensive plant of fry and of a reduced production of whitefish or a stationary product with a small or diffuse plant of fry holds good in waters which are fished under the same restrictive legislative enactments. The Canadian waters of Lake Erie fall at one end of the above series, while the Canadian waters of Lake Superior fall at the other end of the series. These waters are fished under the same laws, dominion and provincial. The differences in their output can not therefore be referred to differences in legislative control. The Manistee-Frank- fort area and the Michigan southeast-shore area are fished under American non- restrictive enactments, while the Canadian waters of Lake Erie are fished under the restrictive laws already referred to, and yet both, having received large and intensive plants of whitefish fry, have yielded increased returns in spite of differences in the fishing regulations. The writer is forced to conclude that the increased production of white- fish in certain areas of the Great Lakes for the averages of five-year periods is due not to legislative enactment, but to the liberal and intensive planting of fry. EFFECT OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT ON WHITEFISH PRODUCTION. An analysis of the fisheries regulations of the Dominion of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the State of Michigan, under which the fisheries were carried on, the data of which are presented in this paper, can not be here under- taken. An act of the Michigan legislature of 1897 provides that, with certain minor exceptions, “it shall be unlawful for any person to fish with any kind of net whatever in the waters of this State from the thirtieth day of October to the fifteenth day of December.”’ The fisheries regulations of the Dominion of Canada provide a close season for whitefish from November 1 to November 30, inclusive, in the Province of Ontario, but certain waters of Lake Erie and the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair are excepted by recent enactment. So far as the close season is concerned the Michigan and Canadian regulations are in essential agreement. They both aim to protect the whitefish during the spawn- ing season. It is quite possible that the improvement in the whitefish fisheries in Michigan waters in recent years, as shown in the tables in this paper, is in part due to the close season which has been in force for about half of the period covered by these tables. That the improvement is not due wholly to the close season is clear when we remember that the Canadian whitefish catch has declined in many regions where a close season is enforced. The close season as THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 677 it now is limited is therefore not in itself sufficient to bring about an improve- ment of the fishery for whitefish. Under the regulations of the Dominion of Canada fisheries officers are empowered to regulate the distances between nets, and if the writer under- stands these regulations, the fishing grounds are leased and the fishermen licensed. The result of this system is that a much smaller number of nets, or a much shorter total length of nets, is in use in the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes than in the American waters. In tables 18 and 19 are shown the data for the plant and catch of whitefish for the Canadian and American waters of Lakes Erie and Ontario for the only years for which American statistics are available in which it is possible to discriminate the true whitefish from related forms. From these it appears that the total length of gill and pound nets in use in the American waters of Lake Erie was in 1893 about twenty times that in use in Canadian waters, although the Canadian and American waters have approxi- mately the same area. The Canadian nets in that year took about four times as many pounds of fish per fathom of length as the American nets. In 1899 the American nets are still of about twenty times the length in total of the Canadian nets, which are taking between four and five times the weight of fish per fathom. In 1903 the American nets still exceed the Canadian more than ten times, and the Canadian are taking more than ten times the weight of fish per fathom. In this year the weight of whitefish taken in the waters of the two countries is the same. An examination of tables 11 and 12 shows that in Lakes Superior and Huron the American nets exceed the Canadian in total length and the Canadian nets exceed the American in catch per net fathom. The latter statement is true only if we assume that the whitefish are taken in the waters of both countries in the same proportion to other fish. TABLE 18.—COMPARISON OF THE ANNUAL CATCHES AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH AND TOTAL LENGTH or NETS IN USE IN UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE ERIE FOR THE THREE YEARS 1893, 1899, 1903. . Canada, north shore, whitefish area 2,100 square miles. - Catch. | Plant. Nets. Vear. | | Total Pounds | Pounds | | Fry per Fry per Total Fathoms pounds per square| per net- | Total fry. | square pound | fatho per square ; mile. | fathom. | mile. caught. : Hee mile. Vee | | LPT 2 ee ee TBOSE So eeosena= 256,000 121 Cee) 58, 000, 000 27,619 226 | 49,500 23 Ye ee ee 431,000 205 3-99 60, 000, 000 28.571 139 107,900 sI NQO3= = Seoneesce 303,000 | 144 | 1.79 62,000, 000 29,523 204 | 169, 300 Bo | | United States, south shore, whitefish area 2,000 square miles. 2 I, 292,000 646 Tg | 22,570,000 11, 285 } 18 988, 900 | 485 = 2,066,000 | 1,033 88 | 104,930,000 52,465 50 2,325,200 | 1,164 — 303,000 | 152 .16 | 90,961,000 45,480 | 30 1,816,300 | 908 i i 678 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. TABLE 19.—COMPARISON OF THE ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANTS OF WHITEFISH AND ToTaL LENGTH OF Nets In USE IN UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE ONTARIO FOR THE YEARS 1899 AND 1903. Canadian waters, whitefish area 1,400 square miles. | Catch. | Plant. Nets. | | WERE © Pounds | Pound F F Fath Total | ounds ‘ounds Ty per Ty per Total athoms ayia per square| per net- Total fry. square pound eathoris per square p : mile. fathom. mile. caught. - mile. LB09 hea eee ee 259,000 185 D5) 5,050,000 3,607 19 168, 200 120 tie ek Hee Se aoe 97,000 69 -52 3.000, 000 2,142 30 186, 400 133 United States waters, whitefish area Soo square miles. TSOQ See ee 161,900 202 2.0 13,475,000 16, 847 83 79,700 99 TOOSe Rc ese 25,400 2 a2 43,920,000 54,900 I,729 114, 400 143 It seems clear to the writer that limitation of the length of the nets in use has not resulted in an improvement of the whitefish production. The white- fish catch in Canadian waters of Lake Erie has diminished and again increased (see table 9), although the length of nets has remained but a fraction of that on the American side of the same lake. The same thing has happened on the American side of the lake, if we may judge by the only available statistics, those of the State of Pennsylvania, which are given in table 21. In table 20 are shown the lengths of nets used in American and Canadian waters of Lake Erie, as compared to the total catch of all fish in the same waters. From this it appears that when all fish are considered the Canadian nets took in 1899 about four times as many pounds of fish per fathom as the American nets, while in 1903 they took about three times as many pounds. TABLE 20.—COMPARING IN RouND NUMBERS THE ToTaL LENGTH OF GILL AND PoUND NETS AND THE CatTcH OF ALL FISH IN CANADIAN AND AMERICAN WATERS OF LAKE ERIE FOR THE YEARS 1899 AND 1903. Canadian waters. American waters. Year. Catch per Catch per Nets. Catch. net- Nets. Catch. net- fathom. fathom. Fathoms. Pounds. Pounds. Fathoms. Pounds. Pounds. 8 00 ee a ae ee | 107,900 | 10,063,000 93 2,325,200 | 58,394,000 25 BASS) Ss Se a a a ee a | 169, 300 5,409, 000 | 32 1,816,300 | 23,189,000 12 THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 679 TABLE 21.—SHOWING IN PoUNDS THE ANNUAL CATCH OF WHITEFISH IN THE PENNSYLVANIA WATERS oF LAKE ERIE FOR THE YEARS 1892-1906, INCLUSIVE; FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FISHERY COMMISSION. 32,000, 000 Year. Pounds. Year. Pounds, | — I5,000,000 || 1900 and rgor 57, 840,000 19, 800, 000 1902 44,560,000 25,000,000 || 1903-- 19, 836, 000 42,000,000 || 1904-- 39, 200, 000 30,000, 000 |} 1905-- 34, 489, 000 43,000,000 || 1906 36, 468, 000 | TABLE 22.—SHOWING THE ANNUAL CATCH AND PLANT OF WHITEFISH AND ToTaL LENGTH OF NETS USED IN THE GREAT LAKES, EXCLUSIVE OF LAKE St. CLAIR, FOR THE YEARS 1899 AND 1903. Lake Michigan, whitefish area 2,600 square miles. Pounds Pounds FE EF Fathoms Total per per LN ARDY Total per Year. pounds. square net- Total fry. aS ec pound fathoms. square mile. fathom. 2 ns mile. Teh se ee Seem I, 510,000 503 -58 53,500,000 20,577 35 2,605,600 T,002 TOO Sipe en ee 1,973,000 682 Orly) 6, 000, 000 7.307 3 2,564, 400 986 Lake Huron and North Channel, whitefish area 9,300 square miles. I, 457,000 158 I.9 24,000,000 2,580 16 756,500 81 I, 525,000 163 aes 39, 000, 000 4,193 25 649, 600 69 Lake Superior, whitefish area 7,500 square miles. dso} ea, Se aes 1,316,000 175 o07i 16, 700, 000 2,226 12 736,600 98 TQ03f ees I, 358, 000 180 1.9 32,000,000 4, 266 24 721,400 96 Lake Erie, whitefish area 4,100 square miles. 2,497,000 609 1.0 196,930,000 48, 031 78 2, 433,000 593 606, 000 147 -30 | 152,961,000 37,397 252 1,985, 000 484 Lake Ontario, whitefish area 2,200 square miles. T8o9i- = 2522-22 422,000 191 mai7, 18, 725,000 8,511 44 247,800 IIr Rosie seen es Soe 122,000 55 ~40 41,000,000 18, 636 336 300, 800 136 All Great Lakes,% whitefish area 25,700 square miles. E890 + == ee 7, 202,000 280 I.0 309, 855,000 12,056 43 6,779,500 263 TQO3te eee 5, 584,000 217 -89 | 270,961, 000 10,543 49 6, 221,200 242 @ Exclusive of Lake St. Clair. 680 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. Total length of nets in use seems, therefore, not to have affected the total catch of whitefish. The explanation of this apparent contradiction is probably as follows, although this explanation is offered with much reserve: When fishing is begun in a virgin water, the catch depends necessarily on the amount of appa- ratus in use. As the rate of catch per unit of apparatus diminishes, which it invariably does, there comes a time when it ceases to be profitable to multiply the amount of apparatus, and as a consequence the number of units of apparatus ceases to grow. ‘The relation of the amount of apparatus to the catch per unit of apparatus is, where no restrictions exist, a self-regulating one. The apparatus is sure to increase to the point where its use barely affords a profit to the user. The total apparatus is not in the water because required in order to catch the total amount of fish actually taken; it is there rather because each fisherman hopes to take the fish which would otherwise fall to another. If, now, the amount of apparatus be diminished, the same number of fish will still be taken in the dimin- ished number of nets until the rate at which they are caught falls below the natural rate of increase of the fish, when, of course, the total catch of fish will increase. If these considerations are well grounded, the regulation of the number or length of nets per unit area does not act to preserve the fisheries unless that regulation proceeds to an extreme that it is not likely to reach in practice. 5o far as the preservation of the fisheries is concerned, the regulation of the length of nets to be used on unit area may well be left to competition, provided com- petition is in some way insured. These remarks do not apply, however, to regulation of the length or location of those nets which might impede the move- ments of fish during the spawning season; they assume, rather, that the spawning season is a close season. To reduce the length of nets per unit area is, however, advantageous in another way, since it tends to lessen the cost of taking the fish and should make it possible to furnish them to the public at a less price. If fishing grounds are leased in such a way as to insure competition among lessees and to prevent the leases falling into the hands of a single lessee, and if the length of nets per- mitted on unit area is then restricted, the fish should come to the market at a lower price, for each fisherman would be compelled to take the fish at a less cost to himself and competition would compel him to market them at a less cost. This principle is commonly applied in another way by the licensing of hunters and sport fishermen and the limitation of the catch that they are per- mitted to take. Here, where pecuniary profit is not an inducement to increase the catch, it is not regulated by the cost of getting it. The sport fisherman tends to get all he can no matter at what cost, and hence it is necessary to regu- late the size of his catch by law im order to prevent his exhausting the supply of fish. In commercial fishing exhaustion does not take place, because it is not profitable and it is necessary to regulate the apparatus used only in order to THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 681 lessen the cost of fishing. The conclusion reached in this section is that neither the close season nor regulation of the amount of apparatus is in itself sufficient to increase the output of the whitefish fisheries of the Great Lakes. The close season is presumably of assistance and should be preserved, since it protects the fish when they may be most readily taken in large numbers. The regulation of the length of apparatus to be employed in the whitefish fisheries has not resulted in preserving the fisheries, but is presumably advantageous in lessening the cost of operation, since it increases the number of pounds of fish taken per unit of net without reducing the total catch. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. 1. The possible modes of increasing the production of whitefish in the Great Lakes are discussed and the conclusion reached that under existing con- ditions there are but two modes available, planting of whitefish fry and restrict- ive legislation. The problem is then stated to be a statistical one, that of deter- mining by the study of existing statistical data the effect on the whitefish catch of the lakes of the planting of whitefish fry and of various forms of restrictive legislation. It is shown that it is necessary to have statistics for a continuous period of years for true whitefish only both for plant and catch and under various legislative restrictions. The necessity of discussing average catches with refer- ence to unit areas of fishing ground is insisted on. Finally, it is shown that the necessary statistics are to be found only in the records of the Michigan Fish Commission and in those of the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada. 2. The habits of the whitefish are discussed, with the conclusion that the fish is a bottom feeder, restricted in its range during nine months of the year to waters of very definite depth. The depths assigned by investigators to the white- fish are then tabulated for each of the Great Lakes, the areas showing these depths are charted, and the extent of these areas measured in square miles. The whitefish areas as thus defined are then briefly described for each lake and it is shown that they are not in all cases continuous areas. Evidence is then adduced to show that the whitefish are local in their habits, so that each part of each area supports its own group of fish, which are in large measure confined to the area, leaving it only in fall when going inshore to spawn and in spring or sum- mer for about two months. 3. In studying the relation of the plant of whitefish fry to the catch it is found that in those lakes or parts of lakes where there has been a large and intensive plant of whitefish fry (30,000 per square mile) there has been a corre- lated increase in the catch of whitefish (72 per cent); in those lakes or parts of lakes in which there has been a moderate plant of whitefish fry (10,000 per square mile) there has been a slight increase in the catch of whitefish or the 682 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. catch has remained nearly constant; in those lakes or parts of lakes in which there has been a small plant of whitefish fry (2,000 per square mile) or no plant, there has been a reduction in the catch of whitefish (26 per cent). (Certain exceptions to this statement are also noted.) It is shown that under Canadian restrictive legislation the whitefish have diminished in waters where planting of fry has been at a minimum and have increased in waters where planting has been liberal; that whitefish have increased in American waters where there has been no restrictive legislation (or little) and have diminished in Canadian waters of the same lake under restrictive legislation. These increases and decreases are stated to be, therefore, in relation to the plant of whitefish fry and not to legislative control. 4. Discussion of the effect of legislation on whitefish production leads to the conclusion that (a) a close season during the breeding period is probably advantageous to the production of whitefish, although the data at hand do not furnish any evidence on that score, and (b) that a practicable regulation of the number of nets or the length of nets to be used in unit area of the lake does not increase the production of whitefish, but does tend to greater economy in the fishing, since the same number of pounds of fish are taken with fewer nets. MEASURES RECOMMENDED AS MEANS OF INCREASING WHITEFISH PRODUCTION IN THE GREAT LAKES. 1. It is recommended, as a result of the foregoing study, that the output of whitefish fry be increased as rapidly as possible, as affording the most certain means of increasing the whitefish production. 2. That an intensive plant of at least 100 fry per pound of whitefish caught be made on depleted areas. (Lake Ontario and the southern waters of Lake Michigan are in need of especial attention.) 3. That a close season be observed during the breeding season of the whitefish as at present, but only for such waters as are not under federal con- trol (see sec. 4, below). 4. That commercial fishing with pound nets and seines be permitted in the waters of the Great Lakes during the breeding season of the whitefish wherever the state or national authorities are prepared to undertake to care for the spawn of the fish taken; the fishermen to be under legal obligation to permit the use of the fish taken by them for the purpose of spawntaking. 5. It is suggested that central control of the fishing operations of the Great Lakes is highly desirable. Whether this is possible in American waters through federal control or through concerted action of the states is a question that can not be discussed here. A central control, under which fishing grounds should be leased and fishermen licensed, would, if properly administered, reduce the cost of fishing and make possible more extended THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 683 artificial propagation. The central authorities should have power to modify the fishing regulations pending legislative action. Such a system might be made self-supporting. 6. The need of more exact knowledge of the habits of the whitefish and of all the conditions under which it lives is very evident. In the interest of the fisheries these matters should be subjects of investigations to be carried on under federal auspices, with suitable equipment and for a long period of years. BIBLIOGRAPHY. ALEXANDER, A. B. 1905. Statistics of the fisheries of the Great Lakesin 1903. Appendix to Report U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries, 1904, p. 643 to 731. Washington. Bean, T. H. 1884. The whitefishes of North America. Transactions American Fish Culture Association, 13th annual meeting, 1884, p. 32-39. New York. Bower, S. 1906. [Statistics of the Michigan fisheries, 1891-1904.] Transactions American Fisheries Society, 1906, 35th annual meeting, p. 72-86. Appleton, Wis. CLARK, F. N. 1900. Methods and results in connection with the propagation of commercial fishes for the Great Lakes. Transactions American Fisheries Society, 1900, p. 88-95. Detroit, 1900. 1902. A successful year in the artificial propagation of the whitefish. Transactions American Fisheries Society, 1902, p. 97-99. Appleton, Wis. DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (CANADA). 1894 to 1907. Reports of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada to the Governor-General of Canada, 1894 to 1907. Ottawa, Canada. Downina, S. W. 1904. The whitefish: some thoughts on its propagation and protection. ‘Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 1904, 33d annual meeting, p. 104-110. Appleton, Wis. KIEL, PETER 1874. Letter to Professor Baird, Washington, D. C., printed in Miscellaneous notes and corre- spondence relative to the whitefish. Report U.S. Fish Commission, 1872-3, p. 79-84. Wash- ington. Knicut, A. P. 1901. The effects of polluted waters on fish life. Supplement to the Thirty-second Annual Report Department Marine and Fisheries, Contributions to Canadian Biology (Studies from Marine Bio- logical Station of Canada), p. 9~18. 1907. Sawdust and fish life. Thirty-ninth Annual Report Department Marine and Fisheries, Dominion of Canada (Ottawa). Contributions to Canadian Biology (Studies from the Marine Biological Station of Canada, 1902-5), p. 37-54 and 111-119. KuMLEIN, LUDWIG 1887. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States, sec. V, vol. I, p. 755-769. Washington. Mricuican Fis CommIssIoNn. 1893, 1895, 1897, 1899, 1905. Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners for the years 1892 to 1898 and 1903 and 1904. Lansing. MILNER, JAMES 1874. Report on the fisheries of the Great Lakes; the result of inquiries prosecuted in 1871 and 1872. Report U. S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1872 and 1873, part u, appendix a. Washington. 75 p. 684 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, PRINCE, E. E. 1900. Water pollutions as affecting fisheries. Thirty-second Annual Report (for 1899) Depart- ment Marine and Fisheries, Dominion of Canada, p. LI-Lxx. Ottawa. 1907. The local movements of fishes. Fortieth Annual Report Department Marine and Fisheries, Dominion of Canada, p. 57-66. Ottawa. RATHBUN, R., AND WAKEHAM, W. 1897. Report of Joint Commissioners r lative to the preservation of fisheries in waters contiguous to the United States and Canada. House Executive Document No. 315, 54th Congress, 2d session. Washington. SmituH, H. M. 1894. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1892, p. 363-462. Wash- ington. 1894. Notes on two hitherto unrecognized species of American whitefish. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, vol. xIv, 1894, p. 1-13. Washington. 1895. Fisheries of the Great Lakes. Report U.S. Fish Commission, 1895, p. 93-103. Washington. 1892. Report on an investigation of the fisheries of Lake Ontario. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, vol. x, 1890, p. 204-207. Washington. Smitu, H. M., AND SNELL, M. P. 1891. Review of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1885. Report U.S. Fish Commission, 1887. P- 3-333, pl. 1-xLu. Washington. TRUE, F. W. 1887. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States sec. I, p. 631-673. Washington. U. S. Fish CoMMISSION (NOW BUREAU OF FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR). 1892-1897. [Plants of whitefish fry in the Great Lakes.] Reports of the Commissioner, 1892-1897, Washington. 1900. Artificial propagation of the lake trout, grayling, and whitefish. Manual of Fish Culture, (based on the methods of the U. S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries), p. 109-120. Washington. Warp, H. B. 1895. The food supply of the fish in the Great Lakes. Nebraska Literary Magazine, Lincoln, Nebr., November, 1895; also Twelfth Biennial Report Michigan Fish Commission, 1894-1896, Lansing. 1896. A biological examination of Lake Michigan in the Traverse Bay region. Bulletin Michigan Fish Commission No. 6; also in Twelfth Biennial Report State Board of Fish Commissioners (1897) for 1894 to 1896. Lansing. DISCUSSION. Prof. Epwarp E. Prince. I do not wish to usurp the time of the congress unduly, but I will say a word or two about the opinions expressed in the two or three papers this morning on the question of whitefish production in the Great Lakes. It is a matter which is of very, very great importance to us in Canada—in fact, I may say I am chair- man of a commission appointed by the Dominion government which has the protection of the whitefish, especially of Lakes Huron and Erie, before it. I give the writers of the papers this morning credit for wishing to do something practical in the matter of pre- serving the whitefish. I give them credit for that. At the same time I, as Canadian commissioner of fisheries and having a good deal to do with administration of fishery laws, see difficulties in the suggestions which were made in the papers this morning, and especially I see this difficulty, that the prohibition of the capture of small whitefish, so long as pound nets or fish traps are allowed, is almost an impossibility—that is to say, the prevention of their destruction. You may try as you will to prevent the taking of small whitefish, but they will be taken. You may prohibit their sale, but they will be handled and in some way disposed of. ‘Therefore the question comes to this: If you adopt a policy which will be extremely difficult or impossible to carry out, it is better to pause before adopting that policy. If you adopt a closed season—and we in Canada, have always favored closed seasons, and have to some extent carried them out (I say that, in justice to our official staff with which I am connected, we have tried to carry out the closed season in Canada)—if you adopt a closed season, which prevents any nets whatever being used and removes all nets from the water, that is an effective measure. You can do that. You can protect the fish by preventing the capture altogether—that is, by taking the nets out of the water for, say, the month of November. I know that Mr. Clark and others will claim that hatcheries will make up for every- thing in the way of destruction of fish by nets if you also preserve the immature fish; and one of the strong points in favor of artificial hatching of fish (instead of allowing parent fish during a closed season to spawn) is that great loss arises from nonfertilization of eggs. I think that is a point which is open to discussion, and I will give you an illustration, and then I shall sit down. Sometime ago I was engaged in hatching sea fish, and I hatched about 70 different species; and I tried on more than one occasion to keep some eggs in the laboratory tanks free from fertilization. The sperms which the male shed in the open sea would reach those eggs through the supply pipes wherever they were placed. In other words, it was almost impossible to keep them unfertilized after they were taken from the ripe female. I investigated the same thing in sockeye salmon in British Columbia. I tried on the spawning beds to get eggs which were not fertilized. I went into the water knee-deep to get them and groped about on the spawning beds there, where the fish were engaged in spawning; and I tell you, gentlemen, I have gathered quantities of natural fish spawn on the beds, and I failed, in some thousands of eggs, to get one single egg that was not fertilized, which showed how scrupulously nature accomplishes the fertilization of eggs under natural conditions. At the same time, I do not deny that eggs may escape impregnation, yet, so far as my observations go, the eggs which were deposited by the parent fish are almost to an egg fertilized. I do not wish to say more, Mr. President, but merely these few words. The PREsIDENT. The next gentleman. 685 686 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. Mr. C. H. Wiison. I desire, as the representative of the State of New York, to congratulate the gentlemen who have furnished these most interesting papers upon this question. I wish to back it up by the protective element and the department of fisheries of the State of New York. While we give you great credit for what you have done, for what you, in your enthusiasm, hope to do, yet we do not believe the time is ripe when we should sever a partnership with nature and the Almighty. [Laughter.] The first paper speaks of the effect of pollution of the waters of the Great Lakes upon the spawning beds of the whitefish. If the beds of the whitefish are destroyed by the thousands of acres, as stated in this paper, I submit to you, Mr. President and gentlemen of this congress, that the time has not arrived when we shall fail to take advantage of everything to conserve the food fishes of North America. An argument is made in this paper regarding the closed season. The writer wishes to close the season for two months, that the commercial fishermen under the guise of gathering spawn for the hatcheries may rush in and slaughter by the thou- sands the whitefish of the Great Lakes. May I ask you, gentlemen, what risk do you run in having a closed season during the spawning period of the whitefish? By an open season you do invite the continuance of an illicit business already begun in the taking of whitefish eggs for caviare, one seizure of one and one-half barrels of eggs in transit having been made last year. You establish a precedent that will later plague you regarding other varieties of fish. The enthusiasm of the writer of one of these papers sees the Great Lakes over- crowded with fish; the sober judgment of another says, ““We may never expect to return to former conditions;”’ while the third, uncertain of his position, says, ‘‘ A closed season may be advantageous.”” The showing of the enthusiastic and faithful operators of hatcheries is fine and gratifying to all; but the catch, after all, determines the real pounds pressure of their enthusiasm. Successful planting must follow successful hatching, and protection wait upon both; and the argument of all arguments in these papers is the statement that the propagation and protection show increase in the last few years. What protection? Practically all states and provinces bordering on the Great Lakes, save the state of Pennsylvania, with its 45 miles of shore line, have in recent years given protection by a closed season during the spawning time of this valu- able fish. The statement is made that a closed season will interfere with the taking of spawn. Mr. Chester K. Green, who operates a hatchery at Cape Vincent, N. Y., will tell you that the state of New York, which I represent on this floor, has given to the United States Government permission to take all the spawn it wishes for hatchery purposes. Hon. Pau, Norru. Representing the state fish and game commission of Ohio, I would state that the question of preserving the whitefish on Lake Erie is a very difficult one, owing to the fact that Lake Erie has four states and the Dominion of Canada bordering, and each and every state has a different law, to a great extent, governing the taking and catching of these fish. It is a notorious fact that up until the last year New York State permitted the fishing with gill nets of 2!4-inch mesh, and tons of imma- ture fish were caught at Dunkirk and those points—immature whitefish that were of absolutely no use whatever—in the summer when they are soft and no good. Of course there comes the question that if you stop the catching of fish there you will stop the commercial fishermen of New York from making a certain living. And if we, as a gen- eral government of Canada and the United States, regulate this and have a closed season until such a time as the fish come up the lake, why, then, the Ohio fishermen get all the benefit; and you can see where the trouble is going to come in and what a difficult matter it is to handle. But the main thing, in my mind, is that Mr. Clark and Mr. Downing are both absolutely right in their premises that one hatchery will produce more whitefish than all the whitefish in a natural state produce. THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 687 You must remember that as the whitefish have decreased the means of taking them have increased. The mileage of the gill nets has increased, and the pound nets have increased, until now in places you will see 30 in one string reaching out into the lake, and it is a wonder that any fish have been left. We should have regulation all along the line—the size, number of pounds they can have in one string of nets; and there must be a regulation, gentlemen, that every whitefish that is taken with spawn must, as far as possible, be put in the hatchery; and if we can have 50 hatcheries on Lake Erie there is no question but what we can have a very large increase in the quan- tity of that fish, as shown by the effect of the 2 hatcheries on the lakes, which have in the last five or six years increased the catch until last year we had the biggest catch on Lake Erie we have had in the last fifteen years; all due to those 2 hatcheries. Nature has been doing as much as she could; but those 2 hatcheries have done the work. Mr. Downing and Mr. Clark know what they are talking about; they know what the conditions are; they know that the hatcheries will do the work; and that if you can by this means conserve every whitefish until you get its spawn and then run that spawn through a hatchery you will have all the whitefish in Lake Erie and more than it ever had before. [{Applause.] Mr. Ketiy Evans. I should just like to take up my three minutes by calling attention to a point in one of the papers that was read this morning, in which the state- ment was made that while we had a closed season on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes the fish in our waters were not as plentiful as they were in the waters on your side of the lakes, at several points. I would remind one or two of the fishery commis- sioners present that they have already spoken to me at different periods of time in reference to using nets by arranging with the Canadian authorities to allow them to gather eggs on the Canadian side of the lakes. Does it not seem curious to you that if the fish are to be found in very much larger quantities on their side they should wish to come to our side for eggs? That is one point I wish to make. The second point I wish to make is this, that if the condition outlined in the splendid papers read this morning is practically possible to bring about, you will have reached undoubtedly a Utopian condition; but on our side of the water, at any rate, I feel convinced that that Utopian condition of things will require a great many years to reach. In consequence, if this congress came out very strongly as supporting the general proposition that hatcheries could be depended upon entirely, and that nature might be ignored, it might result disastrously on our side of the water. If at any point in our international waters all the spawn-bearing fish can be so taken care of that their spawn is in no way lost, possibly the proposition of depending upon the hatcheries alone is the best one; but until that condition of things has been brought about it is a very dangerous thing to say to great nature, ‘‘We need your assistance no longer.” I therefore, from these points of view, urge the congress to go very slowly on this question of abandoning great Dame Nature. [Applause.] Dr. Barton W. EVERMANN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss this question, but I think I shall refrain. I would like to ask one question, however, which I think can be answered by Superintendent Lambson, of the California station. If I have been correctly informed, the natural spawning beds of the Sacramento salmon in the Sacramento River basin have been practically wiped out of existence through mining and other operations of that kind, so that even if no salmon were caught in the Sacra- mento River either for commercial or for hatchery purposes and all salmon in that stream were allowed to ascend to such spawning beds as they might find they would probably amount to nothing; they would be unable to find any suitable spawning beds, because those beds have been destroyed. But through artificial propagation in the Sacramento basin I understand that the catch of salmon in that river now is very large. Some years it is larger than it was ever known to be before artificial propagation began and before 688 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. that river was so much changed physically because of the results of mining and agri- cultural operations. If those are the facts, it seems to me that they point a very impor- tant question and suggest very strongly the wisdom of the course which has been recommended by two or three gentlemen in the papers they have presented. It appears to me that we should no more depend upon natural reproduction in any of the species of fish that we can handle than we should depend upon natural reproduction of corn or potatoes or any other thing that may be left to the wild. [Applause.] Dr. TARLETON H. BEAN (New York). Just a word, Mr. President and gentlemen of the congress, merely to remind you of the present condition of the shad fisheries of the United States, which, it appears to me, is one of the very best illustrations of what can be done by artificial culture as against natural reproduction in streams that have been more or less polluted. I shall go not very far south of the Hudson River and the Delaware for my illustration, and say the Potomac. You gentlemen know as well as I that to-day the fisheries—the commercial fisheries of those rivers, especially the shad fisheries—rest absolutely on an artificial basis; and they have so rested for the past quarter of a century. It is within my knowledge and within your knowledge that in 1874 shad were selling in the Washington markets at 75 cents apiece on the average. You know what they are worth to-day, and you know why it is that you can buy them to-day for one-third the price that you paid in 1874. I will not enlarge upon this topic, but merely remind you that the Hudson, the Delaware, and the Potomac for the past quarter of a century have been increasingly polluted. The natural spawning beds or grounds have been covered with cinders and other waste products of industries; and without artificial propagation there would be no such thing as a run of shad in the North River or the Hudson River to-day, as there has been in 1907 and 1908, equaling the catch of more than twenty years ago. Mr. Fryer. I do not gather that all the spawning grounds of all the whitefish in the Great Lakes are polluted; neither do I gather that they are spoiled by refuse from timber works, sawmills, orfrom any other such cause. Mr. Frank N. Ciark. If I understand you correctly, you do not understand that the spawning grounds of the whitefish are polluted. They most certainly are. In my paper I speak of the Thunder Bay River region, where the beds are polluted out 9 miles in a bay that is 30 miles across, and there are no whitefish in that territory where they used to spawn in great numbers. Mr. Fryer. If that applies equally to all the spawning grounds of the whitefish in the Great Lakes, then, of course, my point falls. Mr. CLark. It does not apply to all. Mr. Fryer. Then the point I wished to make is that, assuming there are natural spawning beds still left in the Great Lakes—— Mr. CLARK [interrupting]. Oh, yes. Mr. Fryer [continuing]. I am glad the assumption is correct for the sake of the fisheries themselves. My argument is this: There is a great distinction to be drawn between the case of the Great Lake fisheries and the cases that have been referred to, such as the shad fisheries of the Hudson and elsewhere, where it is found that all the spawning beds are either polluted or are so cut off from the fish as to be practically unavailable, and I expect that in the paper that is about to follow, on the fisheries of the Rhine, you will find information given which will enforce the point that there is a great distinction to be drawn between those cases where nature still has a little room left to perform its own functions and the cases where the natural conditions have been practically destroyed; and, on the premise that there are still natural spawning beds available for the whitefish, I would venture to support the view put forward by Professor Prince, that you have great cause for hesitation before you put aside the question of improving or endeavoring to improve these fisheries by restrictive measures and rely THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 689 solely upon the measures proposed in those three very excellent and admirable papers which were read this morning, the sincerity of whose authors one can not fail to appre- ciate and admire, however one may differ from their conclusions. Professor Prince referred to the difficulty of regulating the sale of undersized fish. In England it has been found—as has been recorded in very quaint language in some old statutes—that although the law prohibited the sale of small fish their capture was inevitable; and when such methods of capture as hooks and lines were employed, and the small fish had to be thrown back into the sea, they were destroyed, and the public were thus deprived of a certain supply of fish. This is another illustration of the diffi- culty referred to by Professor Prince. At the present moment we have in Europe a difficulty in connection with certain grounds on the southeastern part of the North Sea, where very large quantities of what are known as immature or undersized plaice are caught, with very few adults. The suggestion was therefore made in that case that an international regulation might be passed which would prevent the sale of fish under a certain size, the idea being that although the prevention of sale would not in itself prevent the capture, yet the pro- portion of small fish taken on those grounds is so large that if the sale were prohibited it would not be worth the while of the fishermen to fish there any longer, and so, indi- rectly, under those circumstances, the prohibition of sale would have the same effect as the prohibition of capture. A period of one hundred and eighty seconds is not very long to deal with such an important question as this, but I would like to enforce one point made in the last paper, namely, that our knowledge with regard to the spawning of fish is not as perfect as it ought to be. On the mere point of fertilization of the ova, a very simple test would settle the question as to the proportion of the ova fertilized naturally. I may, incidentally, indorse Professor Prince’s experience in the matter of salmon eggs. I have myself collected salmon and trout ova fertilized naturally, under normal conditions, and I have not found 5 per cent of the eggs unfertilized, so that, prima facie, there seems very great reason to doubt that the proportion of unfertilized eggs in the case of the whitefish can possibly be 99 per cent, as suggested. If I might intrude one minute longer, I would throw out the suggestion—I do it with great diffidence, because I do not know all the local details, but as a very broad proposition for consideration—that it might be possible to arrange between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada for the waters of the Great Lakes to be treated as a common fishery, common to the two countries, subject to common laws, equally enforced on both sides, and based on the most perfect knowledge that it is possible to obtain with regard to the habits of fish, and of course with regard to the habits of man, as to which I personally, as I said before, have insufficient knowledge. I just make the suggestion for consideration, with the addendum that if such an idea were accepted it might be possible to arrange that the fishermen who are interested in conducting these fisheries should themselves contribute to the expense of the adminis- tration and regulation of the fisheries in these waters. Whether that administration were limited to regulations only or whether it included artificial culture does not matter. This might be done by means of a system of tolls leviable not merely by licenses to the fishermen, giving them the right to fish, but on the quantity of fish which they brought ashore, no matter where they landed it, so long as it was taken in the Great Lakes. I make the suggestion with very great diffidence, but if it were possible to elaborate it I could give you several reasons in support of it. Mr. J. W. Trrcoms. I will answer the question raised by Professor Evermann about the run of salmon in the Sacramento River. Practically all of the salmon which ascend the river by the canneries are caught at the Bureau’s hatchery and stripped of their eggs. Occasionally, say once in three or four years, with a very high freshet, the fish get by, or a part of them get by. The fish in the Sacramento River have B. B. F. 1908—44 « 690 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. increased steadily for the past ten or fifteen years. The proportion of eggs which the Bureau is able to collect to-day, as compared with that of ten or fifteen years ago, is several hundred per cent greater. The observations of Captain Lambson as to the natural fertilization of the salmon show that about 75 per cent are fertilized under natural conditions; but further observations show that of the 75 per cent which are naturally fertilized fully 95 per cent are smothered in the sand, so that eventually only a few hatch. Under artificial conditions we fertilize from 90 to 95 per cent; we hatch and develop as fry from 90 to 95 per cent of eggs fertilized. The fishery there is dependent entirely on artificial propagation, and during the last ten or fifteen years has steadily increased. ; In the shad fishery, which Doctor Bean has alluded to, take, for instance, the Poto- mac River: After the Fish Commission began its work of artificial propagation the commercial fishery came up steadily until the figures for a great many years were per- fectly wonderful. We can not show that tremendous fishery to-day, for the reason that the fish are not allowed to ascend the river where we can get their eggs. All our work in the propagation of shad must be done during the spawning season, and the col- lection of eggs is dependent on the run of shad during that season. They can not be caught at other seasons of the year because they are not there. I think that both the salmon and shad are an illustration of the whitefish question, to show that the open season is desirable, if we can have along with it all the necessary hatcheries and spawntakers to conserve the eggs which would otherwise go to waste. [Applause. | Mr. W. E. MEEHAN. Mr. President and gentlemen, I did not intend to take part in this discussion, for the reason that it occurred to me that the papers read this morn- ing cover the question so completely and are so fully in accord with the experiences I have had in the fisheries of Lake Erie and the Delaware River in the case of shad, whitefish, herring, and other fishes that are caught in the commercial nets for mar- ket purposes. It seems to me that the maintenance of fish by artificial propagation is necessary—that the latter is necessary to maintain fisheries. The plea that, although we may believe a closed season for non-nest-building fishes is not needed because fish hatcheries can better keep up the supply of fish than natural propagation, we ought not publicly to say so for fear some harm will be done to some other country which does not propagate is, to my mind, much like the warning which the man gave another not to teach his children to read for fear they would later on come to read pernicious literature. All experiments made have shown that artificial propagation is necessary for the maintenance of fish in the water; that with increased population and increased demand it is impossible to maintain a supply by natural propagation. Artificial propagation has increased the supply of whitefish in Lake Erie and probably in the other lakes; it has increased the herring; it has increased the shad in the rivers. Without artificial means we would have no shad to-day. Artificial propagation has made the whitefish industry once more profitable. The best policy, in my estimation, is that which is out- lined by Messrs. Downing, Clark, and Reighard, to give the freest possible fishing for whitefish, herring, and the like during the summer months when the water is warm, when the fish are soft, and when the runs of fish are apt to be small and immature as to size. Catch the large fish and give the small fish a chance to grow. If closed seasons were made during the spawning period, there is scarcely a fish-cultural station on the Great Lakes that would be filled, unless the government and the states had about every boat employed in fishing. In the state of Pennsylvania, for the hatcheries set apart particularly for the propagation of the lake fishes, it will require every boat going out of the port of Erie to fill those hatcheries, and it is doubtful even then if the houses would be full. The more fish that are hatched, the greater must be the percentage of increase in suitable waters. THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 691 These are my reasons for supporting and believing the papers of this morning as enunciating the true doctrine of increasing the food-fish supply. [Applause.] Mr. SEYMOUR Bower (Michigan). Mr. President and gentlemen, I had not intended to take any part in this discussion. I will say, however, that for many years I have been in hearty accord with the views regarding whitefish propagation as expressed in the papers just read. In fact, I think Mr. Clark, Mr. Stranahan, and others here will bear me out in saying that I was one of the pioneers in advancing those views. To me this proposition seems so simple as to be hardly worth a moment’s consideration if we are right as to the value of what is known as artificial propagation. As evidence of its value I can state that the catch of whitefish in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes is steadily increasing, has been for a number of years, and is now very nearly double what it was ten years ago. To be more exact, in the latter part of the nineties the annual catch was a little over 3,000,000 pounds on an average, while in 1906, the last year for which we have complete statistics, the catch was over 5,000,000 pounds. ‘The figures for 1907 and 1908 are not compiled, but our agent who is now in the field is of the opinion that both years will show a still further increase. There is just one thought in connection with this matter which I desire to present. There are two great divisions in the forces of nature, which we might term destructive and constructive. The existence and development of all forms of life are possible only through the destruction of some other form, either animal or vegetable Now, as fish spawn in nature, the ova are subject not only to the constructive forces of their environ- ment, but also to many destructive ones; but when transferred from that environment to an artificial or protected one, they are separated from these destructive forces and are then subject only to those that are constructive, with the result that production is increased many fold. If that proposition is true, and we have most convincing evi- dence that it is, the situation is greatly simplified. We should apply this principle wherever practicable; should take advantage of every opportunity to prevent the ova of the better class of food fishes from being thrown into contact with the destructive forces of nature. ‘This is the vital point or principle in fish culture. The PRESIDENT. Professor Birge, have you something to say in this matter? We would like to know your views. Prof. E. A. Brrce. I have no right to speak with any authority on this subject. I have been in agreement with the views expressed in the papers which were read this morning, but I have no such personal knowledge of whitefish culture or the whitefish industry as those gentlemen who have spoken on the subject. Mr. W. T. THomprson (Colorado). I would like to say a few words along the line of thought advanced by Professor Evermann. I believe I can bring evidence from Colorado which will place the result attained*by hatchery methods beyond question. Mr. Titcomb stated in his lecture this morning that larger collections of éggs from wild brook trout could be made in Colorado than in any other section. I wish to call your attention to the fact that this species is not indigenous to our state, but was first intro- duced about twenty-five years ago. No trout were found in the state at that time except the native species, chief among which was the blackspotted trout (Salmo clarkiv). The brook trout was first introduced, in small numbers, about 1882 or 1883. Some two years later the introduction of the rainbow trout was commenced in a very limited way. Coloradoans had been accustomed to the native trout for years; the waters were thickly populated with them when the white man first arrived. Naturally, they thought they would always have them without effort on their part, consequently there was no demand on the hatcheries for them; hence, we produced none. ‘The adult fish were allowed to deposit their spawn naturally, ‘‘according to the dictates of their con- science,” as we might say. I might add that the spawning beds were not polluted to any extent and were and are still accessible. 692 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. Now, let us see what has been the result in Colorado after a period of twenty-five years: Our hatcheries, beginning with these first small plants made from eggs secured from other points, gradually began to secure both brook and rainbow spawn in increas- ing numbers from our own waters. The Gunnison River is one of our typical trout streams. Twenty-five years ago it was full of the native trout. None were taken from it for spawning purposes, consequently it can not be claimed that the hatcheries interfered in any way with their natural reproduction. The hatcheries, meanwhile, have been industriously collecting both brook and rainbow eggs, planting the resulting fry in public waters in increasing numbers, year by year. To-day, after twenty-five years of this policy of noninterference with the natives, this species has become prac- tically extinct in the Gunnison River, and the condition in this river is typical of what has transpired in our other streaths. This same Gunnison River is still celebrated for its trout, but the reputation rests entirely on the introduced species, the hatchery products, the rainbow of the Pacific slope and the brook trout of the east, which in our Colorado waters found a congenial home and attained a higher degree of excellence than in their native habitat. Sixty-five per cent, possibly more, of the trout in the Gunnison to-day are rainbows, the balance are brooks, with an occasional native, but the latter are very rare. So far as Colorado is concerned, both of these varieties are entirely the product of the hatcheries. Nature, or, more properly speaking, the natural method of spawning, had practically nothing to do with this remarkable increase. That this is a fact is amply attested by the rapid decrease among the natives when left to propagate nat- urally. Through the work of the hatcheries, our streams are still well stocked, but with the brook and rainbow trout. Mr. Titcomb spoke of a lake containing an island, around which the fish circulated in great numbers during the spawning period. If we allowed these fish to spawn according to nature, there is no doubt but that lake would continue to be thickly populated, but it would not benefit other waters. Operated under fish-cultural methods, assisting nature in her efforts, we have taken over 6,000,000 eggs from this island lake. We could have taken more had we proper facilities at the time. With the fry from these eggs, we were enabled to stock many of the lakes and streams of the state. I believe no better illustrations can be given of the value of fish-cultural methods than we can bring you from Colorado. Mr. Frank N. Ciark. Mr. President and gentlemen, I have very little information to add in the short time allotted to me in this discussion, but I shall try to answer the two or three points which are all I am willing to concede have been made on the other side of this question. One question, I think possibly from Mr. Fryer, or some other member, in reference to the small fish—speaking of certain nets or grounds where it was almost impossible to get along without catching small fish. Remember what I said: “Prevent any sort of fishing in certain localities where large numbers of immature fish congregate upon the feeding grounds, this legislation to pertain to all portions of the Great Lakes system where the presence of such fish has been established and to be enforced during such month or months as they make their appearance in large numbers for feeding purposes.” We do not propose to permit any fishing there at all; wherever the small fish are caught in large numbers should be a government reservation—that is my idea. That is all I have to say about the small fish. Another gentleman, I think Professor Prince, spoke of the high percentage of impregnation of the fish eggs in a natural way. With the salmon there is no doubt of it; but with trout, i. e., lake trout, not the stream trout, and with the whitefish, I thought it was conceded by all who are interested in fish culture that the percentage of impreg- nation of the naturally spawned fish was very low. I have always supposed it was conceded. If I might be permitted to state, Mr. President, I think it is of record in some THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 693 of our early United States Fish Commission reports, where I personally made certain observations upon this phase of our subject, and I have always supposed that this was why we approved the dry method of impregnation instead of the wet method. Experi- ments made by me many years ago in taking eggs of the whitefish brought me to these conclusions: You take your eggs in a pan of water with the milt, and you get a fair impregnation; you take your eggs in a pail of water, say 1o gallons, and you get a medium impregnation—perhaps 20, 30, or possibly 40 per cent. If you take your eggs in a barrel of water you may get 15 or 20 percent. Therefore I have always concluded that where the female whitefish spawned indiscriminately in the water, with the milt no doubt added in the same way, only partial fertilization would result. In fact I believe, Mr. President, that many female whitefish spawn when there is not a male fish anywhere in the vicinity. From that we must, it seems to me, draw the conclusion that where the whitefish spawn naturally it is not possible to have any high percentage of impreg- nation. Personally, I do not like the word “‘artificial.”. There is nothing under the sun artificial about the care or hatching of fish eggs, excepting that you give them care. It is “protected propagation,” Mr. President, and I like to use that term. ‘There is nothing artificial in taking the eggs. You merely bring the eggs and the milt together. That is all there is of it; and then you care for them, and the care and attention which is given them in our hatcheries is what I prefer to call protected propagation. Some speaker mentioned pound nets. Here is the ground that I take. As you will see, I make the penalty very severe to the fishermen; it is the most severe punishment that was ever thought of, in my judgment. Think of it! The third violation stops his fishing. I do not care if he is but 20 years old, he stops fishing the balance of his life. Suppose some of our immensely wealthy fishermen on the Great Lakes—take the A. Booth Packing Company—violate this law the third time, what happens? They must stop fishing or the revenue boat will attend to them. All this is contained in this paper, and my idea is based on the idea of federal control, not state regulation. I mean federal control by the Dominion of Canada and the United States; not state control or provincial control. Our warden boats go there, and they may find a man violating the law. He is arrested; his license is taken away from him for six months; for the second offense for a longer period. Might I be permitted to state what I said to a fisherman on the lake? I gave him my idea of this federal control, and what I proposed. I said: ‘“‘You do not obey these state laws very well?” “Oh, no;”’ he replied, ‘we take our chances on getting caught.’’ “You caught a considerable number of fish here one fall out of season?” He replied: “Yes; oh, yes.” “Well,” I said, “John, I know how many you caught—about $10,000 worth.” He answered: ‘Yes; and I was taken over here and fined $500, but I had $9,500 left.” I said to him: “John, what will you do if you are licensed and you violate that law, and have to stop fishing six months?”’ ‘‘Why,” he said, “it would almost ruin me for six months.”’ I said: “What will you do if you have to stop for a year?” He replied: “I could not stand it.’”’ That is my idea. I do not know whether I have answered all questions or not. . Mr. J. J. STRANAHAN (Georgia). Mr. Clark, you have a better memory than mine, I know. You remember what we published with reference to the fertilization of white- fish eggs on the Detroit River? Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes. Mr. STRANAHAN. What was the percentage? Mr. Crark. It was very low. I do not know that I can give the exact figures. It might have been one-half of 1 per cent. Mr. STRANAHAN. Less than 1 in 1,000. Mr. CLARK. Very low, indeed. Mr. STRANAHAN. I want to speak only a word. Under the direction of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries, I was instructed to make dredgings on the reefs with 694 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. our steamer, using the hose. We did so for several days the latter part of November and the early part of December. We had an inch hose and a rotary pump; and we took up only afew thousand eggs. I can not give you the percentage, but it was somewhere in the vicinity of one egg out of three or four hundred, and, as I remember it now, we got only eleven or twelve impregnated eggs during our two or three days’ work. Our work was off North Bass Island, and around the island near the hatchery where I was then superintendent. Professor PRINCE. There is just one error that I think Mr. Clark would willingly con- sent to having removed, and that is that spawning grounds in the Great Lakes are all polluted. On the Canadian side there are splendid spawning beds which are unpolluted. There are great spawning grounds in Lake Erie and Georgian Bay unpolluted, and the benefit of these spawning grounds must be felt on the Great Lakes, as the benefit of the hatcheries is also felt. I wish to say that I am as strong an advocate as anybody for artificial culture, and have said so in numerous official reports; but I also think that if you can combine that work with a closed season, then you have an ideal state of things. Mr. SAMUEL F. FULLERTON (Minnesota). Mr. President and gentlemen of the congress, have you taken into consideration that men whom I claim to be the foremost in the United States to day in their profession have written papers, all in different directions and all coming to the same conclusion? If any of your family were sick and there were a horse doctor and a physician of high standing in the same community, which would you employ—the horse doctor? No, you would take the physician of high standing. Here is Mr. Clark, who has been in the business for forty years, and Mr. Downing has perhaps been in it as long—men whose word is law in regard to fish culture; and we should take their word, not that of the horse doctor. Now, in our state last year we had a law suit; and I think this will illustrate the point I want to make as well as anything else. At that law suit we had the evidence of eleven fish culturists—the foremost men we could get. We went all over the United States for them; and the conclusion they all reached was the same: That not one whitefish or pike perch egg in 500 ever came to maturity. They were sworn men; they had made tests. I have been at it eighteen years, and I have taken eggs off the bottom rocks and off the sand and brought them to our hatchery and hatched them; but I never got 1 per cent of fry. [Applause]. Mr. Dwicut LypeE.t, (Michigan). I have been listening very attentively to the speakers, and did not intend to say anything; but when some of them stated that we could get along without Dame Nature, I desire to say that I think we can not. I think all fish culturists are willing to admit that Dame Nature is what we need up to a certain point, when they step in and beat Dame Nature where the whitefish are concerned for the next five months. I took some dredgings on the Detroit River, under the instructions of the Michi- gan Fish Commission, several years ago, when they were engaged in the propagation of the whitefish; and out of two quarts that I gathered nearly every day with a dredge, I failed to find any impregnated whitefish eggs. This work was carried on during the months of March and April. No whitefish eggs were collected whatever that were good, although we got quarts and pails of poor ones. That was on the natural spawn- ing grounds. I do not think that we ought to compare our brook trout or any of our other spe- cies of fish, except the lake herring and wall-eyed pike, with our whitefish. The white- fish spawns promiscuously in the water wherever it happens to be. The brook trout clean off their beds in the streams and spawn on them; both the male and the female are there. ‘Take the whitefish run on the Detroit River. The female whitefish come up there in great numbers after the male run has nearly passed by. The first run com- prises nearly all males; in the second run you will get ten females where you will get one male. As they are all ready to spawn, I think it would be impossible for one male to attend to so many females; but if the males that are caught from the first run are THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 695 held in crates by the fish culturist, and used when the females come on, nearly every egg is saved to be turned loose later as a lively young fish. Our tally sheets which are on file in the Fish Commissioner’s office show these statements to be true. So I do not think we ought to compare the brook trout with the whitefish in this discussion at all. Mr. Frver. I would like to ask one question, which is, What was the condition of the whitefish fisheries of the Great Lakes say sixty years ago, before there were many of the mischiefs that exist now, such as pollutions and pound nets and other wickednesses on the part of man, and when also there was no such thing as protected reproduction? One other question on the point of the illustration given us from Colorado, I am in doubt whether the speaker from that State wishes us to infer that the native trout had died out because there was no protected reproduction in its case, or whether we are to assume that it had succumbed to the superior numbers and greater voracity of the alien fish imported into its water. Mr. Pau, Nortu (Ohio). I do not go back sixty years, but Mr. Fryer would know the difference in conditions on Lake Erie now as compared with sixty years ago if he could realize that we have in Lake Erie on the American side a fleet of nearly 300 tugs with 6 to 8 miles of gill nets to the tug. Hecould appreciate that, if the same conditions which existed sixty years ago with regard to replenishing the lake were present to-day, we would not have a fish of that kind in Lake Erie. The PresmpentT. Now, in regard to the question about the native trout. Mr. Thompson will reply to that question. Mr. THompson. I intended my hearers to infer that it was owing to lack of artificial propagation that the native trout had died out to so great an extent. I will state that we have in recent years commenced an extensive work with the natives, with the inten- tion of again making them a factor in our streams. The lake Mr. Titcomb mentioned this morning, where the fish circulate around the island in countless thousands, is one of our native trout-spawning fields. It is about 200 acres in extent and has yielded over 6,000,000 eggs in a single season, this quantity being limited merely by our exist- ing facilities. [The discussion of the whitefish question terminated at this point but was briefly taken up again on the following day.] The PRESIDENT. Mr. Fullerton has just spoken to me about a matter of general misunderstanding in regard to the whitefish question, and it seems to me to be of suffi- cient importance to be brought again before the attention of the congress. I will ask him kindly to make that statement made to me a moment ago. Mr. FULLERTON (Minnesota). A misunderstanding has arisen in regard to the open season of whitefish, that we had the discussion on yesterday. I have talked with several gentlemen who did not understand the position that we took in regard to letting the fishermen fish in the closed season. We did not for a moment contemplate letting any fishermen fish in the open season, except it be under the jurisdiction and under the control of the state or federal authori- ties, both of Canada and of the United States. I hope this explanation will clear away a misunderstanding that existed, that the fishermen are allowed to go to the spawning beds and fish at will. That is not at all intended; that would not be tolerated for a moment. They must do their fishing and taking of the eggs only under the control of the authorities. The PRESIDENT. The chair requests, then, that those who are here will explain to any members who are interested in this problem that this explanation has been made, because I can see how it is perfectly clear to those who are connected with our national hatcheries in the United States. It is so clear, indeed, that they did not emphasize it in the discussion yesterday afternoon. ty | NGRESS “TWN 0 002 366 187 3 Vion eS ee & Ay tram 2 ara ff S2h cc tea ve “real