[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
- ~,l, _REPORT 2'O 'TE CONGRESS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL :-OF THE UNITED S'4TATES The U.S. Great Lakes Commercial Fishing !ndustry--Past, Present, And Potential Property of CSC Library Overfishing, predators (sea lamprey), con- taminants and increasingly restrictive State regulations have reduced the U.S. '-reat Lakes commercial fishing industry o a mere shadow of its former prominence. At this time there is COASTAL ZONE little chance that the numter of commercial I R AT fishermen or the commercial 'arvest from the Grea L akes will increase. Fish farming (aquaculture) is not consilJered a viable alternative to traditional fishing in Great Lakes waters. Knowledge from con- iinued research on harvesting and using less desirable or low-value spe:ies may erncourage commercial fishermen to expand .heir har- O F. . ! TMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA %wil'vests. Alt, 4, L SEF:,,tCES CENTER The future of Great Lakes commercial fish;ng g.3': !TH F ' , N A V NUF depends oCi the extent to which the Great Lakes States want to develop and maintain a , . J. 4 . 3 viab;e commercial fishery. Federal assistance geared to meet the requirements of State commercia;' fishery programsowill help to improve the fishery. 29.6SH .s! 219.6 .U54 CED-77-96 SEPTEMBER 30, 1977 1977 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED -TATES D-1 77 02 4 ,2o tre- President of the '-enate anc. ti'e Socaker of t'ie '-iouse of !'e--rc-ntativps Tnis reoort ciscusses our stu--y of the 'U.S. retLak-es coM.;-.ercial fis.1ingq ifuustrv--oast, oresoflt, -anu ootential. tie maae our stu(3y &c tile joint re(quest of the diouse Comnlittee on llercnartt etarine an-3 Fi-sher,,-- area its z:;ubco,.-!,itt(-e on Fisheries and viildlife Conservatirn Died trne -:nvircn:rent. Tni3~ is tine seconld re.,:,,rt on cou, stuff. Our first ronort entitled,- `Ine j.L,. ';i~hinq Inaustrv--Frces'~t C~onaition anu Futur uf arine 'ir�ie, w.-33 i-35je' t'o t.ae Con.aress on d) 0~~Cecei-:Ter 23, 1376 (2-CD-76-130). At tne oircction of th~e C-nair-.an, -{o-jse cucmmtee , -;isheries anu 0-ilolie Conoervation arid tne wne(nmr re ~~di [l ot obta in for;mj1 commerts f ro,7- aqenc ios niav i.- r ]a'I6t e r o,,3r as i~ owever, we icio iscu-3s tne rc-'ort wit:'6 the ',ational Aarine FJ-vinerie-s Service -)nd the Fi7,h cminico life Service and t'ney acr,-er-Iwith our ccnclL'3icns. SI de *ne'i aje our review pur~uamt to tne 1~uo-oet ar-~ ?�ccur'-tir',~ Act , 19321 (31 fi.5.C. 53) andi tne ;%ccountinq, And A-,3ritinlj ACt of 1~5O(31 U.SC.-67. Conies at tn-ii resort are ce -,'~ent t~o thie -)irfLtor, O'ff ice o f 'aaeentand ui et ar." to t'he .' Oa o th'e C) ~~oc-,-artrents once -Aerncies respcnsibi, Cor c;ittrn Coo r c Ir de .r -aI 4) ~~~COASTAL Z O E CLrI . t 6t3tlr- INFORMATONCTE CO'h'TROTLER GUENEALIS T~iE U.S. SR~;Ar LA~KE3 C-D.A1iR,- REPORr -PO THE CONGRESS '-IAL FIS:11r1fl3 I',DU3riPY--P,~sT, PRESENT, -NNfD PCOT21,'AT, D I GE ST Tne fishing inoustry inthe Great [.akes has declines by 33 percent since 1930, due to causes such as overlishirlig, fish oredators, and contamfination of fish. Comme rcijalI f IS1i ~n- probably will not increase in thie G;reat Lakeo, bu ny improver~t wildpeti u'ion State actions. FUTURE NOT BPIG-iT There is little~ chance thnt the r'>rof Great Lakes cimrilfishermen )r i-he cor~onercial harvest w~ill increase. Corm.-er - cial fishinq is harated by contanin-itioai of fish, and coRmercia'. fishermnen depvnd heavily on the State's willinqnes~ to allo- cate fish to them. The State and F-2deral governmients have stocked the Great 1,akoq I ~ ~~~with hatchery-raised fish. (See aorl. VI..) These fish have not reoroduced as imuc',- as expected and the States have allowed only limite6 harvest of them. Determnining the- avail-qbility of fish for harvest (stock as~,essrnentB) asbear, in- adequate. inetter information on availabii- ity of fish may provide t~ne States with, a basis to determine whether more fish, an6, in soiae cases, more species could be allo- cated to commercial fishermen. But, this does not guarantee co~mmercial fisher.Den an increased allocation of higjhl valued species. Knowledge qained from continued Federal research on harvesting and using "loss desirable" species may encourage commer- cial fishermen to expand their harvests with minimal effect on recreational fis'iing. Tear Sheet. Upon removal. the report cover date 5houid be noted hereon. i ~~~~CEIJ-77-96 Raising fish under controlled conditions in enclosed areas (aquaculture) in tne Grea- Lakes is not a feasible alternative to traditional fishing methods. Officials of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service saud that the future of commercial fisher- men may lie in a combination of harvesting high-value species--assuming stock assess- ments will convince States to allocate quotas of high-value species--and in harvesting and marketing currently under- utilized species. However, the expansion of the industry into underutilized species may take- many years and will require development of new products and markets and the adoption of new harvesting methods. (See app. VIII.) Commercial fishermen are not enthusiastic about harvesting underutilized species because of their low value. They want to continue harvesting the species for which higher prices per pound are received. Some fishermen would consider harvesting under- utilized species if the market prices were favorable. (See p. 5�.) According to State and Federal officials, the umhber of commercial fishermen orcba- bly will not increase, due to recreational fishing and fish contamination. The Direc- to- Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, believed that the number of fishermen will decline or stabilize but that employment in orocessing and marketing may increase with the development of products from underutilized species and the rising trend toward custom retail markets. In essence, the future of the Great Lakes commercial fishery depends on the extent to which States want to develop and main- taln a viable commnercial fishery. Federal assistance geared to meet the requirenents of State coa,mercial fEshery programs ;ill.. help to improve tne fishery. ii i 'TPE FISilERY--A PERSPECTIVE At the turn of tne century,' the U.S. Great Lakes commercial fishing industry was flourishing--harvests were plentiful ind almost every town along the lakes was a fishing port. Over the years, the numoer of commercial fishermen has dwindled (see po ), and the harvest, whicii once in- cluded a large Derce-'-ge of high-vlue species, now consists -argely of ,neaium- and low-value species. Changes in the industry have resulted from --overfishinq certain high-dollar-value species; --invasion of the sea lamprey, a marine parasite that destroyed some hianly desirable snecies of fish; --more recreational fishing, with peonle competing for many of the same fish desired and preferred by commercial fishermen; --State regulations that limit the number of commercial fishermen, that restrict commercial catch of species desired by recreational fishermen, and the use of certain commercial fishing gear and techniques; and --contaminants which made some fish unsafe for human consumption. At the end of the 19th century, about 110 million pounds of fish were caught annually by U.S. Great Lakes commercial fishermen compared with 61 million pounds in 1975. In 1930, there were 5,284 full-time and 1,617 part-time Great Lakes commercial fishermen compared with 137 and 1,043, respectively, in 1975. During 1975 the Great Lakes attracted about 2.8 million recreational fishermen. hEu THE CANADIAN FISHERY The Canadian Great Lakes commercial fishing industry did not develop as rapidly as the U.S. industry nor has it been faced with strong comoetition from recreational fish- ing. Although Canada owns only 36 Dercent of the lakes, its commercial harvest ex- ceeded the value of the U.S. harvest in 1972, 1973, and 1975. j.S. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT Because States have exclusive authority to manage the Great Lakes fishing industry in their respective waters, the Federal role is limited and it alore cannot direct the course or future of commercial fishing. The States do research, determine availabil- ity of fish for harvest, stock the lakes with iatchery-raised fish. and issue requ- latiois to control the harvest of fish. The Government --suoports stock assessments and hatch- eries, --does or funds research, --oarticioates in the program to alleviate the s a lamprey problem, --furnishes some direct assistance to Indian and commercial fishermen, and --helps resolve problems arising from adverse environmental changes in the Great Lakes. (See ch. 4.) The sea lamprey control program is the most significant Federal effort to conserve and 4 restore fish stocks. Throuah 1975 about $22 million was spent on the program w'lich nas reduced the lamprey oopolation by 85 to 93 percent. (See o. 26.) ihrougn 1974 the �'ish and Wildlife Service olanted 49 million lake trout in the Great Lakes. (See o. 28.) iv zederal efforts on uoenrutilizedsoecies have focused on oroduct ano marKet ievel- opraent and the develoomnont of selective fis:hing gear. (See D. '0.) it the direction of thie Chairman, House 3ub- cci~mittee on Fisheries and wildclife Conserva- tion and the CnvironLent, GAO did not ohtiin formal comments from agencies havina fishery- related programs. However, GAO dAd discuss the report with the Xation.l Marine 3isheries Service and the-- Fish and Wildlife Service and They agreed with GAO's conclusions. Ij v~~~~~~~~~~~ C o n t e n t s [ ~~~Contents Page DIGEST i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Scope of review 1 2 THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY--PERSPECTIVE 4 2,~~~ ~Fishery management--a State function 4 I Profile of the Great Lakes commer- cial fishery 4 -1istorical data on the Great Lakes fishery 6 Reasons for decline of the commer- cial fishery 8 e'{~~ ~Competing users 10 Contamination problems 10 iF ~3 MANAGING THE GREAT LAKES FISH STOCKS 12 2~'~~ ~States' management policies 12 States' management techniques i3 Commercial fishermens' concerns ~S~~~ ~about restrictive State regulations 18 States' rights to regulate recrea- tional and commercial fishing affirmed 19 States' plans for the fishery--a limited role for commercial fishing - 19 4 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE FISHERTES 21 Principal agencies 21 Other Federal agencies 22 Enhancement bf fish resources 26 Ia^~~ ~Management of resources 29 Assistance to Indian fisheries 34 Federal efforts to develop and K{~~~ ~enhance the commercial fishinq industry 35 Environmental problems 41 C'!A PT R P 5 'FEViI3ILITY AP ' GF~tAP 1,AES C Q~UA- C UL TU R E P RQ- iiA ,I 45 Arqu~c!.iture not aoonica-le to the Great ua~s46 Ac(~uac-ilture in inooor facilities, inland lakes, ara conus 47 )CANJADA'S i-3RCAP LA';CS COA11.1CRCIAL FISHiEKR .48 iii;torical devel'ooment 4.3 Fishery, qana,)ement 51 Assistance to the in-istrv ruture prospects for tine Canadian commercial fishery 54 7 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVA'PioNS Os THE U.S. COMIMERCUL FISHIG INDUSTRY 5 Federal role is limited 56 Luture not bright for the conner- cial fishing industry 57 APPErNILIX I Letter dated November 19, 1975, from the Chairman of the House Committee on Meerchant Marine and Fisheties and the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and tie Envi- ronment and ranking minority members 59 II Letter dated Garcb 16, .1977, to the honoraole Philip E. Ruucpe, House of Representatives 65 III Great Lakes water surface area 66 IV Reasons for declines in fish stock 67 V Statistics on Great Lakes commercial harvests 71 VI Number of lake trout and Pacific salmon reared in Great Lakes hatcheries 8 9 VII Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Se8 Lamorev Control Proqram 90 Ja"3e APPENDIX V1II Letter dated July 12, 1977, from the Regional Director, Glouchester, Massachusetts National 'arine Fisheries Service, National Oceani and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerrce ABBREVIATIONS BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs EDA Economic Develooment Administration EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDA Food and Drug Administration ~,':tHA~ Farmers 'iome Administr3tion FWS United States 'ish and Wildlife Service GLFC 3reat Lakes Fishery Commission IJC International Joint Commnision (United States and Canada) NItlFS .1ationial Marine Fisheries Service SBA Small Business Administration UGLRC Upper Great Lakes Regional Counmission CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION On November 19, 1975, the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish- eries and its Subcommittee on Fisheries and 1%ildlife Conser- vation and the Environment asked us to make a study to delin- ate policy issues, options, and costs of revitalizing the U.S. commercial fishing industry. (See app. I.) The study was to be made in two phases. The Committee recuested that, at '-r -e completed our study of marine fish- ;nq, we perfoAm rury of the Great Lakes commercial fishing ICustry. OuC ry:-',' 'Lhe U.S. Fishing Industry--Present onit t.i-n at,; , ', ;e of Marine Fisheries" (CED-76-130, Dc-s. 3. '? d, dealt witu the marine fishina industry. Th,.; rep ' :scus> . the Great Lakes commercial fishing our"rq the -t .nv, we had ,everal meetinas with members of thI -:Lnn Ltt ., -' its $ta'f tc discuss the scoee of the work. *-t the Sjbc:-ir:.ittee hearLngqs held on February 18, 1977, w:. presented a briefing on the progress of the Great Lakes -study. I, a March It, 1977, letter (see app. II), to the ranking minority member of the Committee, we aareed to include in our report information on the --histiry of the Great Lakes fishery, --present management of the fishery, --Federal involvement in the fis;hery, --possibility for a Great Lakes aouaculture program, and - -Canadian Great Lakes fishing industry. SCOPE OF REVIEW In performing the study, we met with and obtained information from officials of: i rl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U.S. departments and agencies: Department of Commerce: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Sea Grant Economic Development Administration Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Indian Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Department of Health, Education, anid Welfare: Food and Drug Administration Department of Agriculture: Farmers Home Administration Small Bisiness Administration Canadian Government organizations: Fisheries and Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service Ontario Ministry of Natural Re.ources, Division of Fish and Wildlife U.S.-Canada organizations: Great Lakes Fishery Com!mission International Joint Commission U.S. Commissions: Upper Grea-t Lakes Regional Commission Great Lakes Basin Commission We also met with State government representatives responsi- ble for fishery matters in each of the eight Great Lakes States, recreational tihing organizations, a commercial fishermen's association, and individual commerciel fishermen. W? reviewed various laws and extensive literature on the fishery, including the Eastland Fisheries Survey of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study which identified fishing problems and needs in the Great Lakes. At the direction of the Chairman, House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Env;ronment, we did not obtain formal comments from the agencies havinc fishery-related programs. However, - did discuss these matters with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the 2 Fish and Wildlife Service. (See letter dated July 12, 1977 (app. VIII) from the D ir.'-tor. Northeast Reg ion, National jarine Fisheries Service presenting his observations on Great Lakes fishing.) CHAPTER 2 THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY--PERSPECTIVE The Great Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario (over 94,000 square miles)--are the largest fresh- water resource in the world. About 36 percent of the lakes are within the boundar of the Province of Ontario, Canada. The remaining 64 percent are within the State boundaries of Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Michigan controls about 64 per- cent of the U.S. portion of the lakes. The following map shows the portions controlled by each State and the Province of Ontaric. (Se? app. III for relative size of the Great Lakes waters in -each State ana the Province.) FISHERY MANAGEMFNT--A STATE FUNCTION The individual Great Lakes States have exclusive authority to manage their portion of the Great Lakes fish- ery. The States' fishery management authority stems from the U.S. Constitution and was affirmed by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301). Each State establishes and enforces its own fishing regulations, including the allocation of fish resources. (See ch. 3.) Although the Federal Government has no responsibility for fishery management in the Creat Lakes, several Federal agencies provide support for research, stock assessment, lamprey control, and fish hatcheries. Federal agencies also provide financial assistance to States, universities, and, in some cases, commercial fishermen. In addition, the Federal Government provides funds to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLEC), a joint U.S.-Canadian commission respon- sible for sea lamprey control. The GLFC also promotes coor- aination of U.S. and Canadian fishery research activities. The principal fishery-oriented Federal agencies--provid- ing services for the Great Lakes--are the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NM1FS). U.S. involvement in the fishe-ies is discussed in chapter 4. PROFILE OF THE GREAT LAKES COMMERCIAL FISHERY In 1975 U.S. commercial fishermen harvested about 61 million pounds of Great Lakes fish with a value of about $9 million. This was less than 1 percent or the U.S. com:mer- cial fish harvest total value of about $971 million. The 1975 harvest statistics for the Great Lakes commercial landings as reported by NMFS follows: 4 GREAT LAKES FISH ERY _ LEGEND MICHIGAN ___WISCONSIN IJNEW YORK Fu OHIO ZJMINNESOTA EJILLINOIS ONTARIO~ PENNSYLVANIA CANADA E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RIE . ...... ~~NEW YORK INDIANA OHIO~~~~ PENNSYLVANIA Species Pounds Value Alewife 35,215,800 $ 407,644 Carp 6,732,400 381,065 Whitefish 4,517,000 3,300,957 Yellow perch 3,035,600 1,611,472 Smelt 2,573,300 138,726 Chubs 2,444,100 1,628,641 White bass 1,699,500 490,872 Catfish 559,900 259,162 Lake herring ~ 513,400 145,939 Lake trout 456,400 267,300 Other 2,909,400 a/ 418,514 Total 60,656,800 $9,050,292 a/No :nd idual species valued at over $100,000. According to NMFS, 137 full-time and 1,043 part-time U.S. commercial fishermen were fishing the Great Lakes during 1975; 768 vessels and boats were used in the fishery. Processing and wholesaling establishments handling only Great Lakes fish employed 362 persons. HISTORICAL DATA ON THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY Historically, the Creat Lakes fishery has been a major and valuable renewable resource. Near the end of the 19th century, the commercial fishery was flourishing; harvests were plentiful and almost every shore town was a fishing !ort. Since then, the abundance of traditional food species in the Great Lakes has been adversely affected by invading species, unfavorable water quality, and commercial over- fishing of certain species. Commercial harvest of fish for food has been reduced by contaminants, increased competi- tion from expanding recreational fishing, and a substantial decline in the number of fishermen. As shown on the following page, U.S. commercial fisher- ment harvested about 110 million pounds of fish annually at the end of the 19th century compared with 61 million pournds in 1975. 6 AVERAGE ANNUAL HARVEST THE U.S. GREAT LAKES COMMERCIAL FISHERY 140 - 120 - 100 - w 80 - z 0 - 0. 400- 20 - 1885 1889, 1893 1897- 1903 1908 1914, 1916- 1921- 1926- 1931- 1936- 1941- 1946- 1951- 1956- 1961- 1966- 1971- 1975 1990 1899 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1974 YEARS Employment in the Great Lakes commercial fishing industry also has declined. Number eof Commercial Fishermen Year Full-time Part-time Total 1930 5,284 1,617 6,901 1940 3,647 1,372 5,019 1950 3,193 1,568 4,761 1960 1,914 1,911 3,825 1965 540 1,805 2,345 1970 177 1,293 1,470 1975 137 1,043 1,180 The number of commercial fishermen decreased as the abundance of hiqh-value species declined. In the later years, 1960 to 1975, increasingly restrictive State actions and concern about contaminants further contributed to the decline in commercial fishermen. REASONS FOR DECLINE OF THE CONMERCIAL FISHERY Problems of the fisheries date back to the last half of the 19th century when fish stocks were considered limitless and were fished excessively by a virtually un- controlled fishery. However, overfishing was not the only contributor to the lakes' decline as a fish croducer. In the last 100 years, spawning areas have been destroyed by dam construction, stream pollution, and swamp drainage. Further, marine invaders--the alewife and lamprey--have contributed to the decline of native fish species. (See app. IV.) As a result, the composition of fis? stock in the lakes now is much different than it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the Great Lakts commercial fishery was flourishing. The species of commercial fish cauqht in 1975 differed substantially from those caught from the late 19th century to the 1930s when slightly over 40 percent of total landings consisted of high-value coldwater species, such as blue pike, lake trout, lake whitefish, and walleye. Since the 1930s, landings of these speci[s have dropped to about 8 percent of the total commercial catch. (See chart on the following page.) 8 PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF HIGH UNiT VALUE SPECIES (LAKE TROUT, WHITEFISH, BLUE PIKE, AND WALLEYE) 100 - 90- 80- \%OF NON HIGH VALUE 70 - 40- LU 2 50- n0 - 10- ! i I I * l l I t l I 1885- 1893- 1903- 1914- 19'1- 1931- 1941- 1951- 1961- 1971- 1975 1889- 1897- 1908 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1974 1890 1899 YEARS 9 COMPET-NG USERS Three groups--commercial, recreational, and Indian fishermen--compete for fish in the lakes. Until the late 1960s, Great Lakes fish were harvested predominantly by commercial fishermen. However, recrea- tional fishing increased after the States began pi2nting coho and chinook salmon in the lakes in the late 1960s. In the 1970s Great Lakes recreational fishing became a multimillion-dollar business and recreational demand is expected to continue to Increase. All eight Great Lakes States favor recreational fishing over commercial fishing and have established regulations restricting or prchibit- ing the commercial catch of certain high-value species desired by recreational fishermen. During 1975 about 2.8 million recreational anglers fishing on the Great Lakes far outnumbered the 137 full- time ana 1,043 part-time commercial fishermen. The Indian fishermen, using commercial methods, are generally fishing without any restriction as to species in Lake Superior, Michigan, and Huron. The States' authority to regulate the Indian fishermen is currently being challenged in court. CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS Since the mid-1960s, increasing attention has been focused on contaminants in the Great Lakes. Dichloro- diphenyl-trichloro-ethane (CDT), dieldrin, mercury, mirex, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are the major conta- minants identified in Great Lakes fish. Contaminants damaged the commercial fishery in three ways: --Fish containing levels of contaminants in excess of those established by the Food and Drug Administration could not be shipped interstate. --Fishing operations in certain areas of the lakes have been shut down because of danger- ously high contaminant levels. For example, the U.S. Lake Ontario commercial fishery for most species was closed in Seltember 1976 because of mrrirex contamrniration. --Adverse media publicity has tarnished the image of the Great Lakes as a pioducer of whclesome fish products. 10 The Food and Drug Administration is considering lower- ing the allowable levels .)f certain contaminants in fish products. If this occurs, commercial fishing for certain species may be discontinued in some areas. CHAPTER 3 MANAGING THE GREAT LAKES FISH STOCKS States have always had the authority to manage their waters. For many years, little conflict existed between commercial and recreational fishing and the Great Lakes fisheries were not being managed intensively. Management efforts increased gradually but it was not until after the invasion of the sea lamprey and successful establishment of the sea lamprey control program in the mid 20th century, that the States emphasized the management of the Great Lakes fisheries. As the sea lamprey cootrol program became effective, the States and the Fish and Wildlife Service began to re- store fish by stocking hatchery-reared, high-value species, particularly lake trout and other salmonids. As these species became more plentiful, recreational fishermen began demanding more of the Great Lakes fishery resource. The increased demands of recreational fishermen have influenced the States in formulating fishery management policies. STATES' MIANAGEMENT POLICIES Each State's management policy is to protect, develop, and utilize the waters and fish populations of the Great Lakes for the maximum public benefit. In pursuing this policy, each State attempts to enhance both the recreational and commercial fisheries with emphasis on the recreational fishery. State officials advised us that the recreational fish- ing industry is much more valuable to the State than the commercial fishing industry. Based on State licensing fee rates for 1975, we estimate that the 2.8 million anglers who fished the Great Lakes paid about $11.3 million to the States in license Lees. During this same perioa, the 1'7 full-time and 1,043 part-time U.S. Great Lakes commercial fishermen paid about $P4,000 in license fees. In addition to the license fees, recreational fishermen contributed significantly more than commercial fishermen to the State economies in the purchase of boats, equipment, bait, food, and lodging. Consequently, the States generally resolve conflicts between recreational and commercial fishing in favor of the recreational interests. 12 STATES' MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES Management of the fishery resvurces should be ba-sed on a sourid understanding of fish stocks--species cormposition, abundance, interdependence of a specie on one or more other species, and the harvest on an optimun sustainable yield basis. The need for this information, usually referred to as resource assessment, is essential for effect!'e State's fisheries management. While State fishery managers believe that present assessment is sufficient for their current management needs, they recognize that there are protlems with current resource assessment and that better assessment might be needed in the future. Resource assessment techniaues The States generally use catch data as the basis Lor assessing the resources and the effects of fishing on the stocks. They supplement this data with resource inventories Catch data is collected from both commercial and rec-- reational fishermen. Data furnished by commercial fi.sher- men include the number of fish caught, distribution, condi- tion of fish stocks, and the effects and efforts of Iishino various water depths. Validity of the data is basi illy substantiated through the shipboard and docksiae mcnitor ing activities conducted by the State fishery agencies. Data on recreational catch is obtained through mail surveys and observat ions. Resource inventories by the States and FWS supplement the catch data and aid fishery managers in making decisions affecting the fishery. Inventories of selected species in selected areas of the lakes have provided data on the number, condition, and location Gf fish stocks. Resource assessment inadequate Resource assessment data is inadequate because --resource inventories are not made on all species in all lakes, and are not always t irmely; --catch statistics from recreational fishermen are not obtaincd annually by all States, and the data obtained is not validated; and --catch statistics from Indian fishermen are not available to the States. 13 According to the Eastland Fisheries Survey of the Great Lakes, 1/ adequate and timely assessment of the status of fish stocks on a year-to-year basis is essential for effective management and meaningful evaluation of the various stress effects on these s )cks--overfishing, pre- dation, pollution, and environmental changes. At the request of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the FWS evaluated its own and the States' resource assess- ments. The FWS December 14, 1976, evaluation on the follow- ing page showed that the resource assessment studies were incomplete and inadequate. FWS found that assessments did not cover all species in all lakes and, even where adequate data on a species was available, the data had not been thoroughly cc:npiled for application to fishery management problems. Data on recreational fishing is developed by direct contact with and questionnaires mailed to recreational fishermen by States' fishery management agencies. Some States have not cots istently obtained recreational fishing data annually. Because of the high cost of monitoring efforts, State agencies have generally accepted the reported data without validation. Even with this weakness, State tishery officials believe that data obtained through this method is beneficial to their needs and assists in the management of the Great Lckes fishery. Indian fisherman, using commercial fishing metrhods, fish the upper Great Lakes waters of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The States' authority to regulate these fishernen is currently in litigation. Because the States' authority is under cuestion, the States have teen unable to obtain accurate statistics on the amount of fish harvested by Indian fishermen. A 1975 Michigan Department of Natural Resource-, Fisheries Division report indicated that Indian fishing has hLndered effective stock management and could cause depletion, leading to stock extinction in some areas. Phe report indicated that Michigan does not have accurate In-Jian catch statistics, but that estimates of Indian harvest in the W;hitefish Bay are> of Lake Superior exceeded oy about 100,000 pounds the annual catch of whitefish by commercial fishermen. The report stated that it was doubt- ful that this area woula be able to sustain the hich rate of fishery exploit: ion. 1/Special Report No. 1 of the Atlantic States iarine Fist- eries Commission--Eastland Fisheries Survey of the Great Lakes (October 1976). 14 Data sources Frsh catch Resource Lake Species Ran9e Commercial S-_2t Surveys Composite Michigan Lake trout Lakewide A I A I Other salmonids Lakewide I M I Bloater chubs Lakewide A A I Lake whitefish Lake-north A A A Alewives/smelt Le ewide M M I Yellow percn LaIe-Green Bay A I M I Suckers Lake-Green Bay I I Superior Lake trout Lakewide A I A I Other salmonids Lakewide I M I Chubs Lakewide A A I Lake whitefish Lake-south A A I Lake herring Lakewide A A M Smelt Lakewide Suckers Lake-near shore I I Huron Lake trout Lake-north I A I Other salmonids Lakewide M A I Lake whitefish Lake-north A A M Alewives/smelt Lakewide A I Sculpins Laxewide A I Yellow perch Saginaw Bay A M A A Carp/suckers Saginaw Bay I Erie Walleye Lake-west/east A M A M Yellow perch Lake-west/east A M A M White bass Lakewide A M A I Freshwater drum/carp Lake-west A M I I Lake whitefish Lake-east I I Smelt Lakewide I I Salmonids Lakewide I I I Ontario Lake trout Lakewide I M Other salmonids Lakewide I M I Alewives/smelt Lakewide I I Perch-white/yellow Lake-shore/bays A I M I American eel Outlet basin A I Bass/sunfish/bullhuads Outlet basin A I A I Sculpins Lakewide I I Note: Data sources judged adequate (A), inadequate (I), or marginal (M) in terms of determining status of resource and detecting trends. Composite judged in terms of the development of estimates of standing stocks, annual pro- duction, and total allowable harvest. Efforts to restore fish stocks To rehabilitate Great Lakes fish stocks depleted by exploitation, marine invaders, and environmental changes, FWS and State agencies have stccked the lakes with various species. Federal stocking efforts, dealing mostly with lake trout, are discussed in chapter 4. Massive State stocking efforts, which began in the 1960s, have been directed orimarily toward developing and expanding sports fishing. In 1976 about 24 million hatchery-reared fish were released in the U.S. Great Lakes and tributary waters. The table on the following page shows the principal species planted were lake trout, coho salmon, and chinook salmon. While stocking increased the fish available for harvest, tne States, with few exceptions, have allocatea this addi- tional resource to the recreational fishermen. For instance, the lake trout and other salmonids shown in the ta'le are reserved principally for recreational fishermen. Several State fishery management officials told us that commercial narvest of stocked species might be possible in the future. They indicated that recreational fishing demands would have to be met first and sufficient natural reDroouc- tion would have to occur betore this could be realized. Natural reproduction of lake trout has been insufficient and is under study by FWS. Regulations used to allocate the fish stocks Each Great Lakes State has established reaulations to control fish harvest. However, regulations which apply to recreational and commercial fishermen are different. Regula- tions for recreational fishermen neither restrict the number of fishermen nor the species that can be caught. Recrea- tional fishing regulations generally are designed to protect the fish stocks while maintaining recreational fishing interests. Commercial fishing regulations generally restrict the commnercial harvest to protect fish stocks and assure an ample supply of species of interest to recreational fisher- men. Commercial fishing has been restrictei as follows: --Four States limit the number of commercial fishermen licensed to fish and the remaining four States are considering limiting the number of commercial licenses. 16 1976 Fish Plantings Lake trout Coho Chinook Steel- Rainbow Brown Brook Other State Total (note a) salmon salmon head trout trout trout species (thousands) Illinois 529.0 160.0 80.3 142.0 - 46.0 94.3 6.4 - Indiana 1,050.5 164.0 432.5 38.0 217.0 - 199.0 - - Michigan 11,539.0 3,066.7 3,430.8 3,278.8 418.4 586.0 727.5 - 30.8 Minnesota 62.-.0 344.8 - 260.0 - 9.4 8.3 1.5 - New York 2,430.5 522.9 653.6 658.4 28.8 184.4 382.4 - - Ohio 1,080.6 - 527.8 246.4 55.5 140.9 - - 110.0 Pennsylvania 1,088.8 15.5 247.6 769.0 21.0 24.1 2.4 4.5 4.7 Wisconsin 5,561.0 1,861.4 647.5 1,275.6 - 1,363.5 334.8 36.6 41.6 Total 23,903.4 6,135.3 6,020.1 6,668.2 740.7 2,354.3 1,748.7 49.0 187.1 a/Stocking of lake trout is from Federal hatcheries except for the following State plantings: Michigan, 112.0; Minnesota, 50.2; New York, 57.2; Pennsylvania, 15.5; and Wisconsin, 532.4. See appendix VI fcr 1958-75 plantings of lake trout, coho sal'non, and chinook salmon. --The States either restrict commercial fishing for certain high-value species considered desirable recreational fish or limit the harvest to a quota or incidental catch. The States also curtail commercial fishing for seriously depleted species. For example, lake trout (historically an important commercial species) and other salmonids, being stocked by several States, are generally reserved for recreational fishermen; and the chub fishery in Lake Michigan (an important commercial species) has been closed because of depletion except for specifically authorized catches to determine the condition of the stock. --All States restrict the mesh size of gill nets and M ich igan has banned the use of gill nets (traditional method of harvesting) in some of its waters. Four States prohibit or limit trawling for fLsh. --Seven States have established minimum fish size limits and designatea areas where com- mercial fishing is not allowed. --Six States have established closed seasons. --Five States have designated denths where com- mercial fishing is prohibited. COMMEfCIAL FISHERMENS' CONCERNS ABOUT RESTRICTIVE STATE REGULATIONS Some commercial fishermen believe that the States' fishery management agencies are overregulating the indus- try, and are not fairly allocating fish stocks. Commercial fishing interests hope that as the States acquire better data on the condition of fish stocks, they will relax commercial fishing regulations and allocate more fish to the commercial sector. However, there is no assurance that the States, even with more comprehensive data, would regulate or allocate their resources differently. For example, Michigan and Ohio had comprehensive data on walleye in western Lake Erie that showed the recreational catch would !probably be considerably less than the allowable harvest. However, the two States did not allocate any walleye to commercial fishermen because they did not want to risk damage to the recreational fishery. 18 STATES' RIGHTS TO REGULATE RECREATIONAL AND CONMERCIAL FISHING AFFIRE.ED The States' authority to regulate recrea ional and commercial fishing has been affirmed by Federal Court action. On October 16, 1Il7,, civil action was brought in the U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging, among other things, that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources exercised a policy of discrimination in favor of sport fishirg ano against the harvest of fish for food purposes. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the lake trouc--a hatchery- reareo fish--are raised and stocked with Federal tax revenue for the benefit of commercial fishermen, but because of .wisconsin's discrimination policy, the plaintiffs and eany other taxpaying citizens are oreclurcea from enjoy- ing the lake trout. They contended that unless persons are recreational fishermen, they cannot obtain lake trout from wisconsin's Lake Michigan waters. 5ahe suit asked that the court enjoin the State offi- cials from preventing commercial harvest of lake trout or enjoin the Federal officials from raising ant planting lake trout ano cease lamprey control efforts. In dismissing the case in June 1976, the judge decided that the States have the authority to regulate the fishery. In arriving at a decision, th.e judge stated: "The plaintiffs argue that the program for the propagation of lake trout was designed for the benefit of commercial fishermen and-, therefore, the latter are entitled to enforce such right by legal action. I believe it to be clear that regulation of fisheries is within the police power of the inoLvidual States, and the"State of Wisconsin has the exclusive power and authority to regulate fishing within its territorial waters * * *" STATES' PLANS FOR THE FISHERY--A LIMITED ROLE FOR COMM.ERCIAL FISHING The States' fishery management agencies consider the future of the Great Lakes commercial fishery to be one of enhancing or complementing the recreational fishery, and have adopted a management polizy which favor- recreational fishing. 19 I. I 'I Several State and Federal officials told us that a future increase in the number of commercial fishermen was not probable because of --the arowth of the recreational fishery, --fish contamination, and --States' implementation of limited-entry regulations to control the number of commercial fishermen. The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study report, published by the Great Lakes Basin Commission in 1976, indicated that future demands for recreational fishing will increase and predicted that the eight Great Lakes States will only be able to supply 82 percent of this demand Dy 1980. The State and the Federal Gcvernment stocking efforts have benefited recreational fishing. Many contaminants in the Great Lakes waters affect the wholesomeness of fish for food. Although steps are being taken to eliminate or reduce t.e contaminants, no one knows how long this will take. The Food and Drug Administration is considering lowering the allowable contaminant level for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish from 5 parts per million to 2 parts per million. If the level is lowered, commercial fishing may be further curtailed in many areas of the lakes. The States recognize that The Great Lakes can support a limited commercial fishery. Federal and State officials told us that the economic future for the Great Lakes com- mercial fishery could be improved by increasing the harvest of currently underutilized nonrecreational species, such as the sucker, carp, sheepshead, dogfish, and burbot. Before this can be realized, acceptable products will have to be developed from these species to make their harvest profit- able and appropriate gear will have to be used to harvest them. Research is being conducted on both product develop- mont and gear technology. (See ch. 4. ) Some commercial fishermen told us they have not har- vested underutilized species because the market price is too low. Others said they want to continue harvesting the more valuable species3--whitefish, chubs, yellow perch-- because they receive a high price for these species without having to handle large quantities. Those who would harvest the underutilized species said they would do so if the market price was favorable. 20 tiAVIPTEk 4 FEDERAL INVOLVEMErNT IN THL FIfiLRIECS Each of the eight Great Lakes States has legal out:lor- ity to regulate fishini within its territorial waters. dowever, the Federal Government, directly and indirectly, assists the States thcough several programs Intendeo to h-Ilo them -manage and develop fish resources for both coinmlercial and recreational uses. Also, the Federal Government tur- nishes direct assistance to Indian and commercial fishermen and helps resolve problems arising from adverse environmen- tal changes in the Great Lakes. PRINCIPAL AGENCIES The following three agencies administer Federal nro- grams that directly concern Great Lakes fisheries: The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a U.S-Canada joint commissi)n established under the 1955 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, is resoonsible for devOeloing and implementing a proqram to alleviate thesen la.mprey problem, formul3ting and coordinatino research, --d recommending measures to maximize sustained . iL- ity of fisn stoces. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Deoartnent of tne Interior responsibilties include hatchery raising of fish to increase stocks, bioloaical res,-rc`i of Great Lakes fisheries (including assessments r f fi-h stocks), habitat protection, fishery law enforcemnent, and technical assistance to Indian fishermen. The National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce responsibilities include sponsoring economic research, product and market development, vessel and gear research and development, dissemination of oro- duction statistics, and providing financial assistance to the commercial fishing industry. FWS and NMFS administer the following laws which pro-- vide for Federal grants or other financial aid to States, fishermen and others specifically for fishery activities. --FWS and NMFS jointly administer the Anadronous Fish Conservation Act of 1965. The act orovides grants to States and other non-Federal interests for up to 21 66-2/3 percent of the cost of projects to conserve and enhance stocks of Great Lakes fish that ascend streams to spawn. FWS administers grants related to sport fishing, and NMFS administers grants re- lated to commercial fishing. --FWS administers the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950 (Dingell-Johnson Act). The act appor- tions to States the manufacturers' excise tax col- lected on fishing rods, reels, flies, etc., for sport fish restoration and management projects. It provides Federal funds for up to 75 percent of the cost of such projects. --NMFS administers the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 196F. The act authorizes grants to States for projects designed for the re- search and development of the commercial fisheries and provides for Federal funding up to 75 percent of the cost of projects. The costs of projects to alleviate resource disasters (commercial fishery failures arising from natural or undetermined causes) and to establish new commercial fisheries are funded 100 percent by the Government. --NMFS administers four financial programs authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amendea, and the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to assist the commercial fishing industry. The programs include loans, loan guarantees, and tax deferral measures for the acqui- sition of improvement of vessels and gear. OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES Several other agencies whose missions--unlike those of GLFC, FBS, and NMFS--are not primarily fishery-oriented are also concerned with Great Lakes fisheries. The Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, pro- vides Federal grants, mainly to universities, up to 66-2/3 percent of the cost of research ana development projects and advisory services concerned with commercial and recreational fisheries in the Great Lakes. The grants are provided under the National Sea Grant Program, created in 1966 to stimnulate development, conservation, and use of the marine environ- ment, including, but not limited to, fishery aspects. The Bureau of Inoian Affairs (BIA), Deoartment of the Interior, provides assistance to Inoian fishermen. 22 The Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, en- forces Federal law prohibiting fishing by foreign vessels in U.S. waters. As part of their overall mission, four other agencies have provided or can prov ide financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and loan guarantees to State and/or private projects and operations in both the commerciali and recrea- tional sectors of the fisheries. These agencies are: --the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission (ULGLIC), --the Economic Development Administration (EGA), --the Farmers Home Administration (Fm[;A), --the Small Business Administration (SBA). The following table recaps the agencies and princinal functional areas that comprise direct Federal particiz-ation in the Great Lakes fisheries. Research Sea and Habitat lamprey Fish develop- protec- Enforce- Aid to Financial A2enCy control stockin _mnent tor. n Indians assistance Agencies primar Ly fishery-or iented- GLFC X X FWS WX X X X X X NMFS X Agencies not primarily fishery-or iented: Sea Grant BIA X Coast Guard X UGLRC EDA X SBA x FmHA 23 Estimated fiscal year 1975 Federal expenditures by the above agencies concerning their principal Great Lakes fish- ery activities are shown on the following page. Programs primarily oriented toward human health and the e: vironment and carried out by several other Federal agen- cies have an indirect effect on Great Lakes fishing. In the health area, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as part of its responsibility for protecting consumers against unsafe and imoure foods, addresses the wholesomeness of Great Lakes fish shipped in interstate commerce. In the environmental area, Federal efforts are chan- neled through a variety of agencies. The U.S.-Canada In- ternational Joint Commission (IJC), under the Great Lakes water Quality Agreement of 1972 between the two countries, is responsible for assessing water pollution control pro- grams and assisting in their coordination. Its efforts are supported by U.S. Federal agencies. Although the States nave primary responsibility for control of water pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), plans, re- searches, and sets standards for control. Adaitiorallv, LPA's construction grants program provides funds tc States for constructing municioal wastewater treatment facilities. Other agencies also have programs that affect or address the Sreat Lakes water environment: --Tne Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, carries out dredging and other water-related func- tions. --The Enerqy Research and Development Administration oerforms its own or funds outside research into the environmental imoact of oowerplants on the lakes. --The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Deoartment of Commecce, conducts research to in- orove environmental information and develo- improved service tools to support the needs of governmental and private organizations. --The Office of Coastal Zone Management, Depart.aent of Commerce, under orovisions of the Coastal Zone lanaqgement Act of 1972, makes annual grants to Great Lakes States to assist them in developing management programs for their coastal issues of concern, including, if applicaole, recreational and commercial fishing. 24 Estimated FY 1915 Federal expenditures Sea lamprey control (note a) GLFC $2,100,000 Fish stocking FWS 800,000 Research and development (note b) GLFC $ 12,000 FWS 1,471,000 NMFS (liaison) 102,000 1,585,000 Habitat protection FWS 416,000 Enforcement FWS 3,500 Coast Guard (c) Technical aid to Indians BIA 2,500 FWS 25,000 27,500 Financial assistance: Anadromous Fish Conservation Act grants: FWS 1,291,000 NMFS 25,000 1,316,000 Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act grants: FwS 248,000 Commercial Fisheries research and Development Act grants: NMFS 218,000 Sea Grant: 351,000 Other grants: EDA 393,000 UGLRC 194,000 567,000 2,720,000 Loans and loan guarantees: L NMFS d/150,000 FmHA SBA a/lncl,'_s research. b/Excludes research related to sea lamprey control. c/N v available. d/Amount not included in expenditures column because it is a loan guarantee--only a potential expenditure. 25 --The Great Lakes Basin Commission, a Federal-State group established under the Water Resources Planninq Act of 1965, coordinates planning for conservation and development of water and water-related resources in the Great Lakes basin and fosters studies related to such planning. The 1975 expenditures for Federal efforts in the health ani environmental areas which could be considered Great Lekes fishery-oriented were not available. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH RESOURCES Since establisnment of GLFC in 1955, the central focus of Federal efforts in the Great Lakes fisheries ha� been the enhancement of fish resources--restoration of depleted stocks and conservation of valuable species. The G,-o sea lamprey control program is the most important Federal effort. The program has, to a large extent, overcome the sea lampreys' catastrophic destruction of the most valued fish species and has set the scene for large-scale stock restoration actions. Sea_lamprey control The GLFC program (see app. VII) to reduce the sea lamprey population is carried out by FiWS and a Canadian agency (Fisheries and Environment Canada) under contractual agreements with GLFC. The effort has been extensive. It included surveys of streams, construction of barriers to lamrreys, and development and application of chemical con- trols (lampricides). U.S. Federal expenditures for the lamprey control program through fiscal year 1975 amounted to about $22 million. The program has achieved a substantial reduction ot the lamprey menace. Primarily throuqh the use of chemical controls, it has reduced the lamprey population by an esti- mated 85 to 90 percent. As a consequence, there has been a marked improvement in the survivability of valued species that had been major prey of the lamprey. Despite the success to date, GLFC believes that two areas of sea lamprey control warrant further efforts: --Research to obtain approval of the lampricioes from the environ-ental standpoint. 26 --iHesearch to deveic-' more effective a n economicaI control methods. Restoration of fish stocks The success of CLEC 's sea I amprey control croqracs:- been followed by a malor effort to restore ano ennance f:Sh stocks in the Great Lakes. zeveral Feoerii acqcncices, th- Great Lakes States, and tbe Canadian Province of ;untario participate in the restoration program. GLFC plays an important role in the effort to retc r- the Great Lakes fisheries Lv coorciin atino the rlannirA, irolerrertation of Feueral, State, and Cao6i n ish-r-<r -w programs. GLFCC's Pa rticir ation stems from its view tl;*~ sea lamprey control is only the first ster, in reuev loci2~ the fisherLes; it sees that cocro inateo rlont inc of i ke trout and other desirable species to hastc.r_ rehali-Atlt,; is tho second step. GLFC coordinates restocking activities of various f ish& ry agencies by means of recommreroat ;-nn~ aria ivy prov.J- ing a forum for agencies to reach agr'eFent on --species to be pianteJ, --nimber to be plantec], and --locations of piantings. Hatchelr act iv it ies The FWS fish hatchery Program has crovided maj)or S port to GLFC's Great Lakes stock restoration oa)l s. 1-h E FiNS objective in producina is h for stock I the lIkes Ie to assist in developing and maintaining a sta,,Ile an d f :.- r- able balance of fish. Its LiEh hatchery uronr am em pIsiz e the restoration of lake trout--traditionally a con-erc[w species--thc fish GLFC considers the keystone of tha rep- tcration program. The hatcheries have also orodLuc ci car>, ous other species, mostly recreational fish. The lake trout plantings were initiated in19i58 9bona exper imental basis. To date, most plantings have coen -cae in Lakes Michiqan and Superior. Although the lake tront have survived and dei�eloprd, the proqram's major aoal r-- mains unmet because Ile fish have failed to rerroduco naturally except in lim>'2 areas. 27 The failure so far to develop a self-sustaining stock and the emergence of a large recreational fishery have re- sultea in State restrictions on commercial harvest of lake trout. As explained on page 19, a Federal Court in 1976 dismissed a civil suit against the State of Wisconsin's restrictions on commercial harvest of the species and, in doing so, reaffirmed the right of States to regulate fish- ing within their waters. Through 1974 FWS produced 49 millioTr, or 78 percent, of the lake trout planted. FWS is plannino new facilities to increase its lake trout oroduction. Financial assistance to States During fiscal years 1967-76, FWS under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act and EDA and UGLRC under their econo- mic develooment oronrams orovided about $10.5 million to assist State orojects in restoring and conserving Sreat Lakes fish resources. Funds Drovided for such projects included aopro inately: --$9.1 Tillion for fish prooagation, mainly involving projects for the construction, operation, and i;n- orovemnent of hatcheries. The funds were orovided :,y PvS, EDA, and UGLRC. An estimated 20 million sports fish were purchased or reared by the States through the use of these funds. --$382,000 by FWS for studies on the develooment of Great Lakes recreational fisheries. Th1s included a :ew York project to plan and evaluate Lake On- tario's salmonid recreational fishery and a Micnigan project that studied the economic_ ana biological impact of recreational fishery that developec after salmon were introduced to the Great Lakes. --$48,000 Dy FWS for fish planting research projects in Minnesota and Ohie. --$921,000 by FWS and UGLRC for orojects to improve th^ habitat of fish that ascend streams to spawn-- *rincioally salmon and brook, brown, and steeliead trout. The actions orinarily involved clearing strewms and constructing fish ladders. The Feceral assistance ias orimarily benefited recreational fishing because thre State projects, for t-e mnost part, have 28 ?B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' aoaressed s:?ecies for ghich colr-ercial fishii-m is uronioites or restricted. F'~aS nas also orovided funds to States unoer t! f oingell-johnson Act, whlic'n is soecifically intensoi to as- sist in restoration of recreational fish. P YS )f iciils told us that a summarv of the cunmuative x'ount a-)olied to Great Lakes fisheries was not available, but thiat thie saxount was relatively small. T'he L"jS officiJls :13o tr!1i uls th�e gStates Generally apolv riios. of the Eun:ls to oroj(cts o-r- tainini to inland ratner tnan Orrat Lakes wat-rs. Y:J\G~IPENT OF ES3SOURCFS -,hi le the States nav,_ sole authoritv to reqalate fish- in3 in U.S. Great Lakes waters, tne Federil Guver:inert .-.e- leip-:_nt3 and assists 5tates by oerfor-.inq jirect rece~jarch and furnishing financial aim to State researcn orogr3ns. Thie tLFC seeks to pror.ate cooruination anono t;je various Great Lakes States ana Ontario. "d.i.lonailv, F.,3 and t~ie Coast Guard conduct liiited activities in tne area of fish- ery law enforcement. Re search Research orovides tha information nee ej tor etfective fishery management throu,1h oevelaminn data on thie pr-eset and anticioated future con:-ition of the stocks moo the Lsc- tors which affect thea. Research as a practical manauement tool in the Great Lakes becan to be emohasized durincT the late 19dOS because of --the reestablishnent of valuable stocks, brouqht about by the success of sea larmrev control and stock restoration efforts; --iao1.e intensive State management of fisheries; and --the development of the recreational fishery and the resultant conflicts between cormercial and recreational interests reqarding the allocation of narvests. Direct Federal research related to inanaqina fish stocks is cooriinateo throuqn GLEC ana is performed Dy F.). Lath 29 i .i � � c~~~~~~ agencies have advisory roles--neither has the authority to compel the State fishery management agencies to accept and act on information developed through their efforts. FWS and NMFS provide financial assistance to State research programs and the Office of Sea Grant provides funds to col- lege and university research projects. GLFC and FWS recognize that more intensive research effort may oe appropriate. Beginning in late 1976, both agencies took steps to clarify their future course of act ion. GLFC actions In carrying out its mandate to formulate and coordinate research, GLFC uses the research performed by Federal, State, and Canadian agencies. It does not have its own research facilities and does not directly fund research, other than for sea lamprey control, in any appreciable amount. It is assisted by a Scientific Advisory Committee composed of scientists from U.S. and Canadian Government agencies and universities. In its early years, GLFC focused its attention on sea lamprey control. In 1959 and 1960 it issued general guide- lines for U.S. and Canadian research, and in 1964 issued a prospectus of the investigations needed for development of coordinated fishery management. Both stressed the need for better information on the condition of fish stocks. In 1965, following the success of sea lamprey control measures and the extension of stock restoration efforts, GLFC established a committee for each lake. The "lake com- miittees" consist of senior staff members from the State and Ontario fishery agencies bordering the individual lakes. GLFC uses these committees as a mechanism to formulate and coordinate research. For example, the lake committees have coorjinated Federal, State, and/or Canadian research on the condition of fish stocks, such as yellow perch and Wralleyes in Lake Erie and chubs in Lake Michigan. During our review, the Lake Michigan committee was developing a method of accumu- lating better statistics to determine the effect of recre- ational fishing on the stocks. GLFC has not developed overall research priorities. Its officials acknowledged that research etforts can be 30 a imorovea, sDecificallv in the area of stock assessment. In late 1976, the U.S. GLFC comnissioners reauested FpS to re- view stock assessments needs. FuWS initiated a detailed sur- vey of neeas of both U.S. and Canadian fishery agencies and planned to advise GLFC of the results in 1977. FWS actions F4S research of Great Lakes fisheries is centered in the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann ArDor, `ichiqan. While the laboratory, as part of its overall effort, au- dresses environmental factors affecting fisn (discussed on p. 44), its primary research objective is to assist States in establishing a scientific basis for managing fish stocks. It has focused the greater part of its effort on stock as- sessments of imoortant fish populations. The laboratory conducts assessment activities in close collaboration with GLFC and the Stat s. This role is dic- tated, in large Dart, by the absence of Federal authority to manage Great Lakes fish stocks. To helo insure that the States use its findings, the laboratory makes stock assess- ments orimarily to satisfy the States' wants. Decau-e of the limitations on Federal management authority, the labora- tory takes a neutral position on allocating estimated allow- able harvests to commercial and recreational fishing. State officials advised us the laboratory's stock assessment work has been of direct help. The laboratory ui- rector believes the cooperative Federal-State activities represent significant advances in the auality of research effort. Only one of the laboratory's major stock assess- ments--Lake Erie walleye--has involved the complex analysis necessary to enable a projection of optimum sustainable yielrd. According to FWS officials, the importance of soonphisticated assessments evolved only in recent years, because of con- siderable growth of recreational fishing and the States' intensified fishery management efforts. According to an FUS official, an evaluation in late 1976 of interagency stock assessment efforts showed that information on all but a few stocks was inadequate for dc- velopment of accurate estimates of standing stocks, annual production, and total allowable harvests. However. the laboratory director told :is of obstacles to oroviding more sophisticated assessments. These include a general lack of adequate statistics on the'recreational fishery harvest and a lack of qualified personnel to perform the comDlex work of developing projections of eotimum sustainable yield. 31 j �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F'inancial assistance to States The F~ederal Government has assisted research of Great Lakes fisn stocks by providing ;iatching3 funds for stock- is- sess.-Pent projects conducted by Sta~e fishery agencies ana State universities. In fiscal year 1975, FWS and NIF'S pro- vid~~d about ~$327,OO0 to six State fishery agencies and the Office of Sea Grant provided about $72,000 to two State universities. M~anaqement coordination in addition to coordinating research, GLEC also en- courages and promotes manageznent coordination between the eight Great Lakes States and the Province of Ontario. The lake committees -arovide a forum for interagency discussion of management oroblems and formulation of aororooriate ac- tion. The develooment of intearated and inutuallV acceptarile oro,,rams is a difficult -)rocess because it involves eight States and the Province of Ontario, whose sociological and economic interests are not always the sa;-,e. C-LFC oeaends on the conm-iittees to e-7tablish mutually acceotable pro~iramns Oecause of the rjifferinq objectives of the various aqencies. Reccoi~mendations to 73tate~ and Province maunagement aqen)- cies are usually made ov the lake committees rather than G'LFC commissioners. �'nerally, the lake committees reque,3t toe conmnissioners to nak rcaentisin cases in wrni ch they believe greuter ealriphasis is needed. -inile tne ef fort to achieve coordinated management is a challenoinq one, State andi Canadi-an f isher'; ottficial:3, in general, b~elieve ~LF'C rGas ocen instirumental in oroi-cotinq it. ,,LFC officials oelieve siqnificant orogress has been Tada- in recent years and foreseae continUeC orogress in t oe fu tire. Following are examples of mnajor acconplishments citee-- by a GLEW official. --In July 1974.- a 3UIDC0oo.1ittee Of t'te L.ake M'ichi.-an Corn.-ittee reco,--n-ended that Illirois, Inoijena, lichicjan, an.J '-isconsin suspend chuib fishing in Lake 'licnigan in 1975, and continue the suspension until a harvestable surolus occurred. --In Aoril1 1975), GLFC Urcied %licniian, Ohio, Lane Ontario to aJoot a Lake Eric Comnittee recoi-m n~endation treat the -ininim'yi size li,)it on western 32 ~A~e iric, vJellow n,:irchi for coOnn-~rc1ia [i~iicries (3 -irche,3) be re/~]to 13.5 or 3.715 inctles. --In Decen.fber 1976), the Lake Erie Cori-.ittei, roco- -nended that Michijan, Onio, 3nd n t ar io 3 ocont cornmittee-devcloroe, total catch riuotas fo, .ie~torn LaKe Eri,? wallevc. In ,eneral, the jurisdictions to W ihtThoercon- 9 n~~ic and admiaistrat~ie factors have d-el,3vcu OlmfttI. of the reco~n-,enriations concerning tile yellow nro c~h�''srecmmenatinslo not oddrens the :Illnc--tion of fis- stocks to copinerzi-al and recreational f~emn Fcr exain-Dle, the nLCrcjnnm iotas for ';ectern L~ak'�- Er~ie wallcye oertainled to tole total catch, not to itc al- location zinong cori--,erciDl anri sport fisheries. r-Lr C a c- knowlerj-,es that allocation rf harvests a-non3 iser-3 i- the resoon~siloility of thre ~3tate Dnc t'rovince fisiier,' roanagem,-nnL agenc ies . However, in urging agencies to adopt the Lap',, Erie Comimittee 's recommnenoat ion for an increas-- i n the niin in size limit on yellow perch, SL&'C noted that t-ne incre:ase, w-n- for comimercial fisheries only. It suqgestej treat as recro- ational catch iinta, incofnnle~te at the time the reco--,1-?nua- tion was developed, oecame availaole, the a,-ena ies 3hou id consider this data and the imnoact of thle recreational fi35- ery in any implemnentation of the recommendiation. In 1974 GLF'C issued a document, A\ [ana.-ement Policy for Sreat Lakes Fisheries, which listed the orincinal ion- eral -nanaoemenit needs in -Summary form, without designatinq oriorities. hIowever, GLFC efforts to roromot-- coordinated management have largely addressed individual soecific prob- lems. GLFC officials believe that coordinated actions nea to be developed to address the overall orobli-ms of each * ~lake and the lakes in combination. F'isherv law enforcement Enforcement of Federal fishery laws is ocrlorned b FN'S and the Coast Guard. The :31ack Bass Act (16 U.S.C. 351-856) authorized Fv4S to arrest persons who transport, in interstate or foroign com~nerce, black bass "and other Eish' caugnt or ?rocassca contrary to the law of that State or country. 33 I In the Great Lakes area, FWS enforcement activities have been concerned primarily with illegal catch of lake trout in Lake Michigan. Most efforts have been expended in inspecting shipments of fish to the Detroit, Chicago, and New York markets. Enforcement costs for fiscal year 1975 were $3,500 and are expected to increase to $15,000 to $20,000 in fiscal year 1977. FWS works closely with the States, and usually refers illegal catches to State agents for prosecution, because State laws provide greater penalties than the Black Bass Act. The Coast Guard, as a part of its random patrols of the lakes, enforces Federal laws prohibiting commercial fishing by foreign vessels in U.S. territorial waters. A Coast Guard officer told us that four or five vessels wece seized in the Great Lakes waters during 1976 at rela- tivelv minor cost to the Coast Guard. Although it does not enforce State fishery laws, the Coast Guard occasionally Drovides transportation to State officials enforcing State laws. ASSISTANCE TO INDIAN FIStHERIES The Federal Government has provided technical, econo- mic, and legal assistance to Indian fishermen on the Great Lakes. FWS, as agent of the Secretary of the Interior, pro- vides technical assistance to Great Lakes Indian tribes for off-reservation fisheries. In fiscal year 1975, it scent about $25,000 in furnishing advice to three Indian banus (part of an Indian trioe) that fish Lak? Suoerior waters. Thne auvice addressed such matters as training, developing data on fish aoundance, and develooing catch quotas. Indian bands figh.inq Lake Superior have received econoric assistance froi the Economic Develomnaent Admin- istration and tile UoDoer Great Lakes Reiional 'ommission under their economic cJevelooment orogrami]s, and frc: the 3!ireau of Indian Affairs. --In fi'-;cl vear 1]i5 EDA provided S393,000 to tie Dav :,ills, M.icninian, Indian hand to construct a fiih orocessing -.lant andt, in fiscal year 1975, $11,2;,6 to tne Sad River, visconsin, Indian band fo. a feasiaility study of a fish hatcherv. 34 --In f iscal year 197--, rJ"31,C maee a .~25,000 zirant to tile Red Cliff , viscornsir, Indian ';aoci to f inance a feasi-)ilitv stuny )f a fish orocessinq 31iant. --in fiscal year 197r* -,. 3reon~ an e~sti;-~tod ~-2,500 ot its general -,ssztstance f undls to a~i, Indian ih ing. UJnder Federal treaties and statutes the Deoartl-eint at Justice reoresacntq Indiins in litigation invol-rnq fisainj rights, with ti~e assistance of D-)oart_:'Pent of thc linterior attorneys,. Information was not available on the cost of these efforts. FEDERAL LEFC)RTS TO DFJVELOP AND L,~qANC[E friF,_CNINhE'RCIAL F1311i~G 11,DU LF<Y- Federal efforts have been principallty concerned S'ite) rep c.oring fish stocks and assisting the commercial tisliin(j industry through research andl economic aid. Prior to 1970, resoonSibilities for assisting the C~rc-it Lakes commercial fishing industry were vested in the hureau? L of Commrercial Fisheries, FUS, Depart~nent of the Interior. U~nder Presidential Reoroanization Plan 'lo. 4 of 1970, the responsibilities were transferred--with the excet -tion of fishery biological research, which remained in FN'-S--to NIMFS, Depart~ment of Commerce. During the reorganization, many of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries activities that had been oerformped on the Great Lakes lost their identity in the com- ponents of WJMFS through transfer or reoroqrampinq to other NMFS reriions. Also in this oeriod, some uncertainties existed about NMFS obligations in the Great Lakes. In December 1973, WIFS established a Great Lakes Liaison Office in Ann Arbor, Michigan, responsia'le to tne tIMES 0ortheast Fegion headauartered in Gloucester, :'Ias- sachusetts. The Ann Arbor Liaison Office is staffed by toree people; fiscal year 19)75 cost was about ~102,00C. Tne Liaison Office prepares various statistical reports and identifies needs of Great Lakes comomercial fishermen. It seeks to satisfy the needs falling within NN'FS' juris- diction by arranging for assistance from, other iIYFS facil- ities ana by assisting in the aevelooment ot programs and projects of various universities, comrnrissions, and private enterprise. 35 ihe Liaison Officer advised us that, since the efforts of NiFS facilities in other localities have limited appli- cability to the Great Lakes, N[IFS has addressed the needs of Great Lakes commercial fishing primarily through the Sea Grant program and UGLRC. de also advised us that NMFS grants and financial assistance programs in tne Great Lakes are administered by NMFS' Northeast Regional Office. Financial assistance In fiscal year 1975, !4MFS awarded grants totaling about $218,000 to six Great Lakes States orimarily for stock assessments under the Commercial Fisherias Research and Develooment Act. Under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, NMFS awarded grants of about $25,000 to Wisconsin to be used in a stock assessment program and to identify causes of off-flavor in Great Lakes fish. The four NMFS financial programs to assist commercial fishermen are: --The Fisheries Loan Fund ma;es loans available to fi- nance vessels and gear. --The Fishermen's Guaranty Fund Program nrovides reim- ourse:nent for certain losses due to vessel seizure by a foreign country. --The Capital Construction Fund allows fishermen to accumulate tax deferred funds tor construction, reconstruction, and/or acquisition of vessels. --The Fishing Vessel Ooligation Guarantee Proqrar authorizes juarantee of obligations wnich aid in financing uo to 75 percent of the cost of construc- tion, reconstruction, Dr reconditioning of vessels. A nationwide moratoriuul on use of the Fisheries Loan Fungi has been in effect since 1373, and NMIFS officials told us no aoplications from Great Lakes commercial fishermen havy been received under the Fis:;ernen's Guaranty Fund Prograei because, to their knowledge, Canaoa has not seized a U.'3. vessel. !lowever, the fisihermen have oarticipated in two funds adninistered oy ;N'.FS--the Caoital Construction Fund and the Fishing Vessel Obliqation guarantee Progran. From fiscal year 1971 throuqh ',ay 5, 1977, co-mrercial fishermen executed 10 Ca-ital Construction Fund agreements 3- with NIFS involving an estimated $1.4 million. UndGr these agreements, three vessels have been constructed, two are under construction, and four have been reconsiructed. \n additional six new vessels are olanned, four more are to be reconstructed, and seven used , -ssei]s are to be ourchased. NMFS told us that only one Gr at Lakes commercial fisiheran has aopplied for a loan--a $150,000 guaranty 7ade in An il 1975--under the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program. The Office of Sea Grant has Provided grants to univer- sities for advisory services to Great Lakes commercial fish- ermen. Information was not available to show the an -ounts granted over the years for these activities. In fiscal year 1975, the Office provided about $117,000 to %;isconsin, Michigan, 'Jew York, and Cornell Universities for advisory services for Great Lakes com.nercial fishermen. In the same year, the Office provided an estimated Sd5,0O0 to Wisconsin and Cornell Universities for advisory services for Great Lakes recreational fisheries. The Economic Development Administration Drovid^s fi- nancial aid to States and local areas to encourage lonq- range industrial and commercial growth. It carries out tour major progrars that could have applicability to the fishing industry if assistance is unavailable from other sources. The programs' basic purposes are to: --Assist private industry to expand or locate new facilities in areas genetally burdened with high unemployment or low fam;ily income. --Provide special economic development and adjustment assistance to helo State and local areas mect needs arising from actual ort threatened severe uneiloy- ment resulting from changes in economic conditions. --Helo orovide public works and develooment activities needed to attract new industry and encourage busi- ness expansion. --Provide information and exoertise in evaluating or shaping specific projects and programs for economic development. While EDA has provided funds for assistance to Indian fish- ermen (see p. 34) and State 'rooagation of recreational fish (see p. 28) in the Great Lakes, it has not porcided funds to assist commercial fishing activities. ED\, 37 however, aid not know if commercial fishing interests had applied for such assistance. The Small Business Administration can make loans to eligible recipients in the fishing industry. Both regular business and disaster recovery loans are available. We contacted 10 SBA offices in eight Great Lakes States and were advised that one loan for $10,000 had been approved for a commercial fisherman in 1972. Most offices indicated they had not received applications from commercial fisher- men, fish processors, or marketers. Fishing industry firms are also eligible for financial assistance provided by the Farmers Home Administration, De- partment of Agriculture, which provides loans to entreore- neurs interested in developing businesses and industries in rural America. However, an FnFHA official told us that no applications had been received from Great Lakes commercial fishing interests. lie said that one casual inquiry had been made but an aoolication was not received. We discussed Federal financial assistance with 15 cur- rent and 2 former Great Lakes commnercial fishermen. Only six knew that Federal financial assistance was available. Most of them regarded local lending institutions or large commercial fishing operations as potential sources of finan- cial assistance but believed that local lending institutions would generally be reluctant to make loans to Great Lakes comanercial fishermen. Fishermen cited the fishing indus- try's instability as the reason for lender reluctance. Most fishermen interviewed said they had never applied for finan- cial assistance. 'he N9FS Great Lakes Liaison Officer stated that finan- cial assistance may not oe a critical need for all fisher- men. However, he believed that some fishermen and proces- sors may need financial assistance to purchase improved -;andlinq and processing equipment, such as deboning ma- chines and qcick chilling units. lie indicated that finan- cial assistance for such equipment could benefit processors and small harvesters who would agree to diversify their operations by handling underutilized species. Development f underutilized species The deoressed stocks of traditional zonnmercial suecies and State restrictions favoring recreational fishermen serve os restraints on the arowth of the Great Lakes coimnrrcial 38 fishery. rhe potential [or enhancing the industry aopears to be in developinq a more diversified fishery--increased harvest ot presently underutilized species, such as carp, sucker, sheepshead, anu smelt. The commercial fishermen interviewed expressed interest in ex'panf(ing their harvest of underutilized soeces if a bctter Gnarket could be ob- tained for them. State and Feder-i ofticials uelieve unuer- utilized species offer ootential lor increased commercial harvest. Further, this would make use of a resource that would otherwise be wasted. The success of the fishery, however, will require develooing (1) information on abun- dance (stock assessment), (2) selective fisnin, techniqoues, and (3) marketable products. The NMFS Great Lakes Liaison Officer believed tnat three soecies--sucker, sheeoshead, and smelt--offer the greatest potential for promoting early and broad benefits to t-e commercial fishery. Two of the species, sucker and smelt, are abundant in all the lakes, and shee.shead i, exceedingly abundant in LaKe Erie. {is estimate of their ootential harvest, based on information received froln nro- (ucers, State officials, and university investigators, is shown below: Pounds 197' 5- 2TPoentTai harvest harvest (millions) Sucker 0.6 3 to lu Sheepsiead - 0.9 3 to 3 Smelt 2.6 6 to 10 The NMFS Liaison Officer indicated tnat (1) some gear research, including development of new harvesting Inethods for smelt, will have to be done to determine tie best neth- ods for catching these soecies; (2) new produ-ts, tL aain consumer acceptance, and good storage techniques will nave to be developed for sheeoshead; and (3) use of hign-volume processing equipment and/or freezing facilities will have to be increased for smelt. In October 1976 the NMFS Liaison Officer prooosed a program for Great Lakes fishery development aimed at solving the problems of oroduct development, orocessing, and market- ing of sucker, sheepshead, and smelt. The proposal was sub- mitted for consideration and possible inclusion in the 39 it fiscal year 1979 budget. The program would rely op research performed by NMFS facilities and research supported by the Office of Sea Grant. Where ongoing research is not suffi- cient, UMFS funds would be used to contract for additional effort. Federal efforts rn underutili~.ed soecies have largely bencarried out through U-LRC and the Office of Sea,-rant, focusing on oroduct and market and selective fishing gear de velIoorent. To assist commercial fishing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, at the request of the States' governors and the advice of Federal, State, and commercial interests, UJGLRC concentrated on dev'eloping a fisher~y for suc-kers in 19)74. in fiscal years 1975 and 1476, UGLRC provided grants oL' about $464,000 to universities for taree projects to develoo and riarket new food products using suckers. U G 11R C was assisted by an advisory committee that incloc~ie the 'JMPS Liaison Officer and State officials. Accor-ling to 0GLi_- ared NMFS officials, the Projects ;-,et their objectives--yielding 6cceptaole new products, develop- ing quality control. anci uevel1opirg a market for tn., orod- .Icts. Trie e~IFS Liaison Officer believes the orojects, coupled with consumer c-uacatiun, will provide a basis for future use of suckers by private enterprise. The 11.1FS Liaison Officer told us that these efforts have been complemented by other Federal efforts dcaling witn underutilized soecies. For example: (1) under the Sea Grant Program, some university stock assessment projects have addressed such soecies, and i.niversity marine advisory service Personnel have assisted in test narketinq new -Dro- ducts, (2) stock assessments of sore underutilized soecios .iave been Performed by FWS, and (3) in fiscal year 1375, Ohio received a $70,000 NNMFS grant for a orojec c to devseloo greater comnercial use of sheenshead. In fiscal year 1976, as a further means of h--elnin7 -ieveloz) oireater use, of underutilized soecies, 'JG'C orprvi,-r~ a 530,000 irant and tire 9ffice of Sea Grant provided $27,200 to a UniverSity of M1ichigan oroject ai.:ed at evaluiatiri thel fea~i.)ilit,, of nurse se-ine nets--a form of s,:lecti,)e '-ar- Vesting goas--for G-reat ~,akes fisneries. C:om:e r,:ial1 f ire r- .ien contrioated a:)o.ut $50,000) of ti;-e anci eff(rt ti ta _)!7oject , ani '4,'SF3 and thc State of *Iich i an proviied t-cin i- cal assistance. 40 inner~~~~~~~~~~ ta n Iec 107 ICtc 1: t 1-1 ')r3o t 3I71 ~reat --1:O .Ii e L )r ar 'O (25 11 I0 ~r at ra Kes emi -.v I.,D'i-i~-;AL jix _LjS DIa variety, ol or'vironrnerita-L fc t.)r , inchuiin >t~ 2 litlion arni cae~truction ct 1w'-1( areas. p a r ,ret La k es oat e r qualit v ' \r,--?-- en t nf 1 '37 2 aa i r tan t :;tfe' .) intl e c~ t o I -l- 7j te e~ c,- ir n -t~ ri -i'tteci --co conr O1'rlo . n -D In to acnio~ve~ thiem, -)nl j'- . J. D.- i'n~ It w-rla )Oint '201310r 70 cilt fr C-,-i: r In 1~77, tiri ~i rtn <ca :2 ,-rl rant ' ' ta :)12 auqienr -h.I, ,t(, Cra rron ti-mt. *'r- ow.' tC.. an :1 t not 50Th) r'.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ r-snor� act? r ca-i o'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o.;:~~~~~ riot iC'<~~~~~~V;e ! Ii�? i -r - roEQ-0'a t 10 0] I1 i tv \; CVj1VOoID( f-sII --.. cr :r oq r a j , -il_~c*1�0 f or 71'a aic :w -sr ogrei33 i. inoustr iai )ral ljt i,-n ntr; --enact:sient of. le-jisl't ion, tor control i mi z o n tam ,a n t'3; ariaj ,Ioweve~r , JC renor teo tiiC t the 't2 3n ho-)s oi I 7 -2 fo r --IIi ick reso lts" in re.-tor jgwtr~aitv Jiistne real ize'A and nuch re'n ciie' to .7d cre.e I1 J" itoontt- cer ta in nrobl.-mcs--sjcr as reduf_-isa !oil ut ion f r o:- ct r-- oner ic fall-out and various 1land-use c vtiC--r o termn in nature. urreoort "Clcani-q Jr) 'l-le -Ire;-t toes ] ~ tta s ndCanorla Are, Makinq Progrress In C~ontrollinci P01ll1t300 ra Cities An3 Towns," ( FU')-75-333, "arch 21, 1~7'3) hc how then two ccolnt' jeS were- orolres'sini in controIl1 in'li 1lition in the Great Lako-5ea ~~~~~~~~~~~~41 Contaminants In IJC's :-w, contaminants and other toxic sub- stances--factorb that have had a oarticularly adverse effect on the fisheries (see o. 41)--may be the most serious problem facing the effort to ensure future beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. Attention was drawn to persistent contaminants found in Great Lakes fish in the 1960s. The most common types identified have been DDT, dieldrin, mercury, and PCBs. In 1976 an additional contaninant--mirex--was identified in Lake Ontario fish. Actions taken include (1) curtailing industrial discharges of mercury, (2) banning the use of DDT and dieldrin, and (3) enacting legislation prohibiting use of PC3s except under controlled conditions by some States. Despite such actions--and resultant reductions of cer- tain contaminants in some areas--available data indicates that the contamination problem is a stubborn one and that control will be difficult to achieve. Certain containirants are persistent and tneir sources can be wide-ronging. For example, PCS3s enter the water from such diverse sources as runoffs from landfills and -ollu- tants from the atmosphere. Little can be done to remove them. -oreover, the contaminant level in fish is much higher than the level in the waters they inhabit. This ohenomenon occurs because fish concentrate and, in effect, magnify The contaminants they absorb. Some fish contain contaminants in excess of FDA guidelines, even though the level of many contamirants in the waters they inhabit is low--so low that it is undetectable by standard analytical procedures. New legislation for controlling toxic contaminants was recently enacted by the United States and Canada. In Canada, the Environmental Contaminants Act, oassed in late 1D75, provided for estaolishing an Environmental Contami- nants Board of Review to inquire about and regulate any sub- stance suspected to be dangerous to human health or the en- vironient. One of tihe first suostances to be regulated is 'PCBs. In. the United States, the Toxic Substances Control Act, signeo into law on October 11, 1976, authorizes L'A to ootain ocuction and test data [roTa industry on selected chiemical substances and mixtures, and to regulate them when needed. The act drobioits all production of PCBs anJ their distribution in commerce after .uiv 1979. 42 In Feoruarr 1977 IJC urqed the Two Governments to implement the legislaeion as nuickly and comorehensively as possible. However, according to IJC, it is not known whether the legislation i-, aiequate to orotect the en- vironment from all known anid future adverse effects of contaminants. IJC has recommended that the Governments give the nighest priority to jointly undertaking a special program to assess the problem of persistent contaminants in the Great Lakes with a view to developing and imole.enting programs for their control. In particular, IJC called for research and development of early warning mechanisms to identify new chemical substances that present risks if discharged into Great Lakes waters. As a step in this direction, in March 1977 an I1JC work group proposed that a fish contaminant survey program be undertaken by several Great Lakes Jurisdictions. 3ecause the oresence of contamil:ants is more readily detectable by analysis of fish and other aquatic life cian by analysis of the waters themselves, the orooosed procramn orovides for a coordinated survey of contaminant levelrs in selected species of fish to identify areas where contamination is excessive. Identification of such areas, in turn, would assist in identifying sources, and thereby aid in rvmedial efforts. According to an IJC official, near-shore surveillance may be impl-mented during 1977. Fishery agencies' involvement in environmental matters Although IJC and EPA have the primary responsibilities for Great Lakes environmental matters, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission aid FWS are also involved. GLFC has taken several steps to make fishery concerns about the environment better known to IJC. In January 1976 GLFC furnished IJC with a summary of findings and opinions on environmental issues developed by its lake committees and the Scientific Advisory Comnittee. A GLFC official ad- vised us that the two commissions have arranged to mee- jointly to discuss fishery environmental proolems, at either's request. Additionally, IJC has sent a representa- tive to GLFC meetings, and GLFC Personnel are included on certain IJC boards. 43 : p �9 FWS conducts various ecological assessment activities aimed at protecting fish habitats in the Great Lakes. Dur- ing fiscal year 1975, it spent about $416,000 for this pro- gram. The efforts primarily involved reviewing proposed Federal or federally assisted water-related projects, in- cluding the Corps of Engineers dredging actions, to assess their potential effect on fish habitat. FWS involvement is required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. An FWS official told us that favorable consideration has been given to its views and recommendations. In addition, the FWS Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory conducts research on the effects of contaminants on fish and the response of fish to environmental stress. Among other things, its efforts address the effects of water- use oractices on fish and their habitat. In fiscal year 1975, about $524,000 of the laboratory's expenditures pertained to FWS environmental research. Other agencies' involvement FDA plays an important role in environmental factors affecting tile Great Lakes fisneries. For the purpose of protecting public health, it conducts research and issues regulations governing the permissible levels of pesticides and industrial contaminants in fish. FDA samples inter- state shipments of fish and can seize the shioments if con- tamination exceeds tolerable levels. EPA has the primary Federal responsibility in environ- mental imorovement efforts. Its mandate is to mount an integrated, coordinated attack on environmental oollution in cooperation with State and local governments. Besides setting standards fqr control of pollutants, it conducts or supports water quality research, including studies re- lating Pollution to fish and the aquatic environment. In fiscal 1975 EPA expenditures for Great Lakes water-related research, development, and management amounted to about $33.2 million. In addition, under its Construction Grants Program, EPA allotted an estimated $712.5 million in fis- cal year 1975 to States for construction of municipal waste- water treatment facilities in the Great Lakes basin. In 1970 the Corps of Engineers established a Great Lakes Confined Disposal Program, which calls for placing oehind retaining dikes any material dredged from the Great Lakes area that EPA determines to be polluted. The program 44 to Cate nas exoeriencea suostantial --elays an] cost in- creases. These matters are discussed in our re)ort "rcdq- ing America's -iaterways And :iarbors--,lore InformIarion :eecdei On Environ.nental An( Economic Issues," (CLD-77-44, June 2i, 1977). The Energy Research and Development A.imiistration, -s part of its research into the environmental iioact of power- plants on the Great Lakes, has addressed tne effects of u'r- tain elements on freshwater food cnains and has siooorted FWS research about the effects of waste heat diicharges fro:-, oowerplants on fish. The Department of Conmerce's Great Lakes Lnvironnmntl Research Laboratory has addressed *patters of i.oortance to fisheries, orincipallv throunh research into factors aftect- in., the aquatic food chain. The Office of Sea Grant has :roviied f!inis to assist university research projects addressing Great Lakes water environment and pollution. In fiscal year 1975 ftunis sPde available to university Sea Grant orograms for this :ir:os? was about $432,000. The Office of Coastal Zone nianaqe;nent, Frepartmaent 'f Comnerce, is assisting all Great Lakes States in aevelopon4 management proqrams to protect and enhance their coastal resources. In fiscal year 1975 Federal expenditures aopli- cable to the Great Lakes States was about $1.7 million. 45 CHAPTER 5 FEASIBILITY OF A GREAT LAKES AQUACULTURE PROGRAM The Congress h- shown considera le interest in developing aquacultL, in the United -_ates to supplement the harvest of naturally produced aquatic species. During our review, aquaculture development legislation had been introduced in the Congress. AQUACULTURE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE GREAT LAKES The Great Lakes fishery-oriented organizations do not consider aquaculture as a viaole alternative to traditional harvesting operations, and believe that aquaculture techni- ques are not feasible for tne Great Lakes waters. Aquaculture is the propagation and rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected environments. To be suc- cessful and compete with naturally produced products, aqua- culture must be easily accomplished or must grow a very high-market value product. It requires a strong market to provide adequate returns which encourage the development of production systems. Generally, aquaculture requires that an enclosed area--a pond, fish tank, or pen or cage within a larger water area--be used to control fish movement and facilitate feeding to increase growth rate and harvest. Aquaculture experts from Government and universities and fishery managers from the Great Lakes States believe use of pens or cages in the Great Lakes open waters is not feasible because the rough waters would destroy the en- closures. There are some protected areas where the rough water would not be as great a problem (e.g., Saginaw Bay in the 'ichigan waters of Lake Huron). Protected areas tend to be in high demand for industrial navigation and recreational boating and fishing. State officials said that because these high priority uses already exist, they believe it is not feasible to set aside areas for aqua- culture purposes. Further, Federal and State officials believe that aauaculture on the Great Lakes is net practical b-cause of other problems such as --contaminated water, --a short fish growing season, and --water temperature variances. 46 The commrercial fishiiermen we contacted han not seriously considered aquaculture as an alternative to open water fish- ing. They also generally agreed that aauaculture involvinq pens and cages was not practical in the Great Lakes. AQUACULTURE IN INDOOR FACILITIES, INLAND LAKES, AJ;D PONDS The University of �isconsin, under a Sea Grant Colleqe Program, has successfully grown two Great Lakes soecies (perch and walleye) under controlled conditions in an indoor facility. This project is marginally orofitaole. Both State and Federal fishery officials believe that this tyoe of inland aquaculture may hold some oronise, and that if aquaculture is successful in the Midwest it will be of this type. A Michiqan State official indicated that aquaculture on inland lakes would :iave to be done in private ponds or lakes and would probably not be a viable enterprise because growing seasons are too short. A National Marine Fisheries Service official told us that outdoor aquaculture in the Great Lakes region is less feasiole than in other areas of the country because of extreme water te,:perature variances. Even if indoor or inland aquacultur? is successful, the Great Lakes commercial fishermen may not benefit. In fact, it may compete with commercially harvested Great Lakes fish in the marketplace. 47 I � .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CHAPTER 6 CANADA'S GREAT LAKES COiMIERCIAL FISHERY Although only 36 percent of the Great Lakes waters is in Canaaa, the 1975 value of the Canadian commercial fish- ery harvest exceeded that of the U.S. commercial fishing industry. Canadian Great Lakes fish stocks have suffered the same aepletion and instanilities as tne U.S. Great Lakes fish stocks except for isolated areas like Georgian Bay in Lake Huron. (See apo. IV.) However, the Canadian coomnercial fishing industry was less affected by competi- tion from recreational fishing and restrictions on gear than its U.S. counterpart. Canada's Great Lakes recrea- tional fishery is much smaller than that of the United States, princioally because fewer people live near the Canadian side of the lakes and the Canadian recreational fishermen orefer fishinq in Canadian inland waters. IJe- cause recreational-fishinv is small, it has had limited effect on Canada's commercial fishing industry. :iISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Population growta along the Canadian shore of the lal.ke has been slower than on the U.S. side, and Canada's commer- cial fishery did not develon as ouickly as that of the United States. In the early 20th century when the U.3. fishery was flourishinq, Canada's Great Lakes fish market was limited to consumers living near the ports where fish were landed. As methods of orocessina, storing, and trans- porting fish were imporoved, Canacian fishermen were aole to increase their harvest anJ: market their fisli in the United States. As a result, Canada's Sreat Lakes conmmercial fish harvest increased from about 19 -million Dounds in 1903 to aoout 40 tillion oounds in 1975. Over 75 oercent of the Canadian harvest is exoorted to the Unitea States, princi- pally to the Detroit, Criicatgo, ana New York markets. Fic i stocks aeclined on both sides of tle lakes, but the nJffoer of Canadian coanercial fisnerTen decreasec at a lower rate than the U.S. commercial fish.ertnen. From 1)40 to 1975, the number of Canadian conmmercial fisher;len iecreased 3y'about 47 perlent comoared Kwith a decrease of about 77 oercent for U.S. commercial fishermen. 48 -he value of tie Canadian comi:iercial narvest began to approxiimate that of the United States in 1969 and, as shown below, exceeded toe U.S. harvest in 1972, 1973, and 1375. Canadian U.S. Value V alue Year Pounds (note a) Pounds (note a) (mill ions) 1966 47.8 $4.4 67.7 $5.7 1967 44.8 4.6 82.0 6.0 196a 47.2 4.5 67.3 5.d 1969 55.6 5.S 67.0 6.0 197G 40.2 5.4 70.4 6.3 1971 38.1 6.0 62.d 6.5 1972 36.3 7.2 58.4 7.1 1973 47.9 9.2 66.7 3.6 1974 47.9 8.3 77.3 10.5 1375 40.4 9.6 60.7 9.1 a/Not adjusted for differences in U.S. and Canadian dollars. As shown on the following page, the 1975 Canadian and U.S. commercial catch consisted of several of the same species; however, over 50 Dercent of the U.S. catch consisted of low-value alewives. 49 Canadian U.S. Value Value Species Pounds (note a) Pounds (note a) __ , ithousands) _ Smelt 17,333 $1,202 2,573 $ 139 Yellow perch 9,419 4,387 3,036 1,611 White bass 2,580 709 1,699 491 Lake herring 2,232 435 513 146 Chubs 1,249 771 2,444 ],629 Whitefish 1,203 811 4,517 3,301 Alewives 2 (b) .5,216 408 Other 6,411 1,294 10,659 1,325 Total 40,429 $9,609 60,657 $9,050 a/Not adjusted for differences in U.S. and Canadian dollars. b/Value included in other category because source data did not include a dollar value breakdown for all species. Lake Michigan is exclusively in U.S. waters. Of the remaining four lakes, the United States controls 53 percent and Canada 47 percent. In 1975, Canada harvested 73 oercent of the volume and 68 Dercent of the value of tne fish har- vested commercially by'both countries in the four commonly shared lakes. Following is a comoarison of the 1975 Canadian and U.S. catches by lakes: 50 Canea:can '.S. Value Value Lake Pounus (note a) Pounds (note a) (thousands) Erie 30,549 $6,009 8,484 $1,964 Superior 3,769 1,012 4,735 1,792 Huron 3,334 1,806 1,658 630 Ontario 2,777 782 233 99 40,423 $9,609 15,310 4,485 MLichigan - - 45,347 4,565 Total 40,429 , $9,609 60,657 $9,050 a/Not adjusted for differences in U.S. and Canadian dollars. In 1975 the Canadian commercial fishery employed 1,563 fishermen ooeratinq 794 vessels and boats. lurinq this same year there were 1,180 U.S. commercial fishermen operatinq 768 vessels and boats. About 50 Percent of tne Canadian vessels and boats were over 20 feet in lenath with about 25 percent of them over 40 feet--comparable size data was not compiled for U.S. commercial vessels and boats. We believe the relative success of Canada's commercial fishing industry compared with that of the U.S. industry can be attributed, in Dart, to the fewer and less restrictive regulations imposed ay Canadian authorities. FISHERY MANAGEMENT Management of the Canadian Great Lakes fishery is the responsibility of the Province of Ontario which regulates both commercial and recreational fishermen. Ontario performs stock assessment on its portion of four Great Lakes, and uses this information, alonq with catch statistics, to manage the fishery. Limited entry and quota management are used to control commercial narvest. Ontario tries to minimize -ear restrictions which would adversely affect the eff:ciency of commercial harvesting. 51 Ontario's policy is to manage the Great Lakes fishery to obtain maximum public benefit. Because its Great Lakes recreational fishery is small, compared to its U.S. counter- part, Ontario has been able to allocate more of its fishery resource to the commercial sector. When a real conflict exists between commercial and recreational interests, Ontario has favored the recreational interest. Ontario has been reluctant to restrict efficient com- mercial harvesting techniques, and has not always strictly enforced its regulations applicable to its commercial fishermen. For example, in the past, Ontario's size limit for perch in Lake Erie was not enforced, and special per- mission was given to catch small perch. As a resuit, about 70 to 90 percent of Ontario's perch catch in western Lake Erie was under both the Ontario and U.S. 8-inch size limit. Ontario also permits certain harvest techniques which are generally not allowed on the U.S. side. A Canadian trawl fishery is permitted in Lake Erie for smelt, and gill nets are still widely used. These two harvest techniques are largely restricted on the U.S. r-rtion of the lakes. Ontario has also allowed limited commercial harvest of certain high-value soecies, such as the walleye in western Lake Erie. U.S. coomercial fishermen are prohibited from harvesting this soecies in the U.S. western part of Lake Erie. Ontario's fishery management policy differs from the U.S. policy on stock rehabilitation. Ontario does have some stocking orograms but believes that stocking the lakes will not be worthwhile (cost beneficial) in the long run unless natural reproduction is achieved. As a result, Ontario is pursuing programs to enhance natural reproduction, and stocking the likes only in areas where recreational fishing jecland is high. ASSISTANCE TO 1HE INDUSTRY Ontario and Canadian Federal fishery octicials oointed out tilat cormaercial fishermen, processors, retailers, and ancillary enterprises are distributed throughout Ontario and are important to the economy of many communities. In addi- tion, the fishing industry is export-oriented, contriouting favorably to Canada's balance of payments. rne Ontario and Canadian Federal -overnments urovide assistance to commercial fishermen thro ah the followinm programs. 52 --The Vessel A�ssistance Proi-raim sliosi,-szes th(Ion struction and/or Modernization of fisiin-j v'�ssels. Durina 1976-77 1/, 14 Great Lakes vessels were constructed or refurbished with Canadian Feuernl assistance of $87,000. Tnis pronram has, in oart, Oeen responsiole for the ;-.onernization of Canada's kGreat Lakes fishing fleet, oarticularlq on L&(e Cr ie. --The Fish Chilling Assistance Programr s-jisioizes 50 percent of cost of chilling equipment for oro- cessirig plants and fishing vessels. Aithouqn no grants were maoe to the Ctreat Lakes co-mmercinl fishing industry in 1:)76-77 1/, $90,000 nas Occn oudgeted for 1l.77-78 I1/. --The Fisheries Inprovei-i~ent Loan Act r'roVidcs loa'1s to commercial fisnerrnen for vessel anj eai-)icnt ourchases. in 1975-75 1/, -[ree loans totalinq $6,342 were nacde to Ontario com.-ercial fsemn --The Fisheries TLoan Act, terminated in 19731, nro- vided loans of $66,000 to commercial fishermen1- forced out of business when the fishery was closed in 1970 due to contaminption. These loans were forgiven in 1976. --The Fishing Vessel Tnsurance Plan provide5 cove-ra-ic for fishing vessels at below-market interest rates. In 1976-77 1/, 110 Great Lakes vessels, '.ith an insured valu~e of about $3 million, were covcre6 under this plan. The ?lar. is desi-iref. to be self-supporting and is not considereu a subsiuv. --The Federal Pro,,incial Industrial D~evelopment Prograxi funds research ana develo---,ent work ovi corimnercial '-ishery problems, Tticn as gear tecanol- ogy, processing innovations, , i explorator-Y fishing. In 1976'-77 1/, $110,000 was spent or. such research. --The Fisheries Prices Supoort Board is desiqned to protect fishermen against sharp price declines. During 1972-73 1/, $755,405 was said out to sugoort the Once for perch. 'Most, if not all, of this amount was recovered in subsequent resale of fish. Because, the price of Great Lakes fish has remained high, this rprogr,-., is rarely used. I/Fiscal years ending March 31. 53 Canada also has fish quality, vessel safety, and harbor development programs which indirectly aid its commercial fishing induscry. FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR ThF CANADIAN COMM2RCIAL FISHERY Ontario fishery management officials expect that the world food shortage will increase and that the Drice of fish will increase. This will encourage the -ummercial harvest of underutilized species, such as sheeps iead and alewife. Tney told us that the future of the Canadian commercial fishery may be adversely affected by --changes in water quality and contaminant levels and --growth of the recreational fishery. Both Canadian Federal and Provincial fishery officials believe that efforts are needed to correct water quality ana contaminant problems, and they supoort the actions f the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International Joint Commission in this area. Ontario fishery officials believe that any adverse effect on the commercial fishery caused by increased recrea- tional fishing can be minimized by continued use of sound fisherv manaqement practices, equitable allocations, and develooaent of more selective commercial fishing techniques. 54 '-,AP-)Fi; 7 CO3;CLuL�S1G JS A2ili; U31SZAV\T'IC-:z3 01A T'i.f U.S. C.Dlm, __<~CIAL VISIIN~ G 1+DS V arious co mlex i ssue se'ver -I limit th e otenti f ti r expaniuing the U . S Groat i-k es c o!;nercial fisy!i . At the turn of the century, tie O.S. 'reat L akes c~c- me ro iaI f Ishini industr y a3 1s ouris h inq(--narvnCatv e:r, olertiful and almost every town 3lonj thr? lakcs was a fish- i-iq nort. Over the years, nowever, the nu-.er (>OL coT..arci-:1 fishermen has been reduced Substantially anol tie harvest, which once included a substantial cercenteic - of hiih-valu-e soecies, now consists laraily of :nedium- anjr1i -value snecies. T.- followiiq factors are the -ri.nary causes for the chanqiinq face of the Great Lakes coano-ercial fisainj industrv. --M;ost socies which were i-Pocrtant to tire fishin,, industr-i have Iben jeoleted or are ncar deDletion Because of overfishirv or the invaSion of the sea lamorev. As the abundance of hiqh-value hu-man food species was reduced and the inoustry turnec ,iere to the low-vslue species--over haif of thne pounds cauqht in 1975 consisted ot alewives. --Some traditional co.mmercial species are under heave aeinanci oy recreational fishermen. b4ith tee relative success of the sea lainprey control pro- qram and tne stocking programs for la~e trout ana other salr.onias, a large recreational fishery nas tievelooeo in the -reat Lakes. Tnie recreational fisisermnan fish for some species !i-jrily valued i ,Y commercial tishermen--yellow perch, walleye, ano lake trout. --The States generally favor the recreational interests in their management of the fishe'Mes. The Great Lakes States' fishery management uolicies are to orotect, develop, and use the fish resource of the lakes for maximum oublic benefit. The States ejmphasize recreational interests because of the higher favorable economic value of the recreational fishery. They consider the future of conmercial fishing 55 to be one of enhancing or com-,oleii~entina the recreational fishery. --The States, to orotect the resource and assure adeauate stocks for recreational fishermen, have li'7ited the nurmber of commercial fisher- men throuch licensing, generally orohibited comm-ercial catch of soecies desired by recrea- tional fisher~men, and restricted the use of various tyges of coinmerciai fishing gear and techniques traditionally used to harvest fish. --Commercial fishing has been adversely affected by conta noination oL certain species in ;Darts of the lakes. Since the rnio-1960s, increased attention~ has been focused on contaminants, such as DOT, dieldrin, mercury, micex, and PCBs in ~;reat Lakes fish. The Food anci Drug Administration lias issued regulations that lil-it tee J:;,oUnts of contamnnants allowable in fish so-il interstate. Altho--gh not all :;reat Lakes~ [1� exceed tne FD-\ tolerances, tho nuhlicitv about contaminants has harmped tire i~aeof the Great Lakes as a ~Dorjiucer of whol'�so -e fish oroducts. Tne oroble-, a f con- taminant-s is comale and available d~atD indi- cates t.,.at its control will he difficult to achieve. This area is recei~ing continuingj attention bv the International -Joint Commis- sion concerned with, 'eater cualitv, the Great Lak'-s '.lsnery Commission, and Federal and State~ aovernment orjanizations. --nce a)s~r'ce of reliabl,? datea on the volume of fisn t- can be harvested hamp :ers eftorts of com~erialfishermen to obtain larg3er vollumes of desir-able soecies. Federal and State? fishery officials and comlqeIrcial fishino interests recognize that stock assessments ncve -je--n inadeoiuate. The cot:iaiercial Lishing interestsd doc-2 that better stock assessments~ 4ill influence the States to allocate ~tocks excee.-inq recreational needs to commaercial f isherT2n. E2EDLiRAL ROE13 LlIMITEO The ei~int Great 1_akes StLates have oxclusivc authority *nanae .S. reat Laes [ishina. Consequently, ft,: 56 reoeral role is limited to oroviaing suDoortive services-- researcn, stocK assessment, sea lamorey control, hatcherins --ana financial assistance. Federal efforts have oeen dire-teo toward bot'n recrea- tional and commercial fishing. Thnese efforts have contris- uteu significantly to the conservation ano restoration of fish stocks, alleviation of the sea lamprey orobler, and the pursuit of new uses for underutilized seecies. Because stock assessments nave not been adeouate, increased Federal assistance to imorove stock assessmrert- may Drovine the Staies with data needed to determine optimum sustainable field. Tnhis woulu Drovide the States with a basis to determine whether more fish and, in some cases, more soecics could be allocated to co:n'mercial fisheries. The knowledge gained from continued Federal research on harvesting and using underutilized snecies may encoLrage commercial fishermen to exoand their harvests with min:.mal effect on the recreational fishery. Vigorcls identification and control of tne sources of contaminant- by Federal agencies, in cooruination with the States, will helo to overcome the uroblems of contaminants in Great Lakes fish. Because the States control the finheries in their respective waters, Federal efforts alone cannot assure tie course or future of commercial fishing in the Great Lakes. FUTURE NOT BRIGHT FOR COiINIERC IAL FISHIiNG ILNDUSTRY IThnere is little potential for increasing the numeor ot commercial fishermen or substantially increasing the co.r:..er- cial harvest. Commercial fishermen depend heavily on the State's willingness to allocate fish resources to them and are strongly affected by contamination of certain soecies. State and Federal efforts to rebuild the Great Lakes fish resource through stockings have yet to result in significant natural reproductions and the States will not allow significant commercial harvest of these hiqh-value species. Improved stock assessment mav be an answer, but this does not guarantee commercial fishermen an increased allocation of highly valued soecies. As discussed in chaoter 5, acuaculture in the Great Lakes does not seem a feasible alternative to traditionai 57 L. fishing methods. The use of pens or cages in the open lake waters is not feasible because the rough waters would destroy the enclosures and would interfere with industrial navigation and recreational boating and fishing. Further, aquaculture would face contamination problems, a short fish growing season, and wide variances in water temperatures. TNIFS and FWS officials believe that the future of ccmercial fishermen may be in a combination of (1) an increase in the harvest of high-valued species--assuming improved stock assessment will convince States to allocate quotas of yellow perch, walleye, and the lake trout--and (2) harvesting and marketing currently underutilized species, such as suckers, sheepshead, and burbot. The expansion of the industry into underutilized species may take many years and will require the adoption of new harvesting methods and development of new products and markets. The commercial fishermen are not enthusiastic about harvesting underutilized species because of their low value. They want to continue harvesting the species for which the higher prices Der sound are received rather than harvesting large auantities of low-value, underutilized species. Fisher- men -who indicated they would consider harvesting under- utilized soecies said they would do so if the market orices were favorable. both State and Federal officials told us that the number of cominercijl fishermen will probably not increase because of the recreational fishery and fish contamination. The Director, Northeast Regional Office, IMFS, believed that: --'Ihe total number of fishermen will decline or stabilize with State implementation of limnited entry programs designed primarily to phase out casual fishing operations. --Changes in har~vesting methods will require less statfpowe; in tne production sector. --Employment in the processinrs and marketing sector .lay increase with tne expected dievelopiient of processed products from underutilized species arnd the rising trend toward custom retail markets. In essence, the future of the Great Lakes connercial Lisherv dePerds on the extent to wiich States want to develoo ard rmaintain a viable comm.nercial fishery. Federal assistance leared to meet the reaoiremcnts of �tate connercial fishery _robtrams will neln to imnrove the fishier. 58 ~~PPENDE)~~~~~~~~ I ..PI-JE -D NINETY-FOUR~~~h CONGRES .*nA!Pte. t 1_4 A MR K.KI ULVNM JON A. DIC L IU. CaA'KLLUAn UDIL W MAAIIJKUU.G II_:II NVC~l tII P iKA. 11.) 0f~ijn C1a~n cu C~se J~~~~~ ~~ITIN .KNA A A UNITI il KIIA). CII. PKPNT ~ r 11 S tOJT ;I. PA. PAULA~~~~~ ~~~~ SAKACS tN AAIU iMLY MA.NP ;I~ o 'As~ Iu nlto r, ""!I. I it I *~ ~ ~ ~~~~~C)~Itc- Td C ICC AIV0 11~'U101:llt(' I 11TIC iC hC fA) u,); il t Eu t [I1 cd "IIIC Id I S.I i<1I:I 1 JuI - 44 ~C s trcct C ,M ) t1: lit - N~011 t0,t1 C !~I :1 t 1dI- dUt I tli'd I i'hjtl 1(E- I Jl Iii (onim It C ic ;In cs I I v '. I II III c hci hrhe It iu S l.. coi ic nc ith t1* I t Sh :HI th I)YLILk fl k -L I 11 i11t hc r v. toI C incru s- it l I i tIc I hIl t I I tan~~~~~~~~ ;c 7t EC d~ Lc.(A Xi ok-c r0 112 Iic" it li I)c i I (- , ;I hcnc its.~ ~ Hi C 51% 0- Iv ci ic r o h v iodd siiI t s- I, 1 1 1 CtluIlE Li m I vec icEc.- d i Qs i ihr clic . I1 r1 t n~ C il I ac CI ty nIol c .\ i S t s hol( (A( K lc-o rt (IIt i t I cd "Need to Is .9 < Pr i r It anIId C r i t cI. ii Fo ~I~ a,)1 kl i ii g As si St ain cc, I- EO f E..V: t i' * [~~~~~~~~~~~I li m-,i C-,s c I (Orc i-at o v s' el Ich ra rc I9 rcc-yid ! dLI i I-Ot ioil CII' Ccc rt tiZ I I II riai I) C 1 I sS t :1nc I1 'p: ad n~ i I i s tc r Cd h'. t hc licvi rtirlct 0 f I. 6 11 ]n(, Ict t 0. IL it t d e t r 11 t I s e I Ic t s, c I' Iit II Fore i) (3 Fi I - , 5 9 ~r~nxIAPPENLDIX I P1age 'Iwo November 19, 1975 Spur-red by a sense of urgcnlcy to cont rol thle increased foreion fishing inl waters of f thre Un ited S ta ts C, Conr s a now I i klv to enlact Some formn 01 extcndAed fisheries jurisdiction bx' late 197S or early 1 9 T6. TheC :LdVent Of extenlded juio sdc ion presents new~ op)IorItUn it i c- forl deVeCOjTlopmet of the 110oaneSt Ic fishing ndIui iS t rv I. t cal I Is forI a reaIs sess-ment ct fthle Govv rnaaaent ' role inl ;iss is~t inIg, inlduStrv to take advant'loe of' tile poctenitial presented anld assure ("It ill-urn ut i i :ationl of our resources. in the na;t itonal int crest. .\s enIunCiated inl `enaZte Concur.11renlt ResolUtionl Ii 19731_ '.. i is- I the Ia i ofI thfe ("oncrIess~- thail.t nor fi shn nut ry INe a ffo rded all s itppo -t IIeces sa rv t o IIaIke i t s t I eaigbell cd, and a I I step be- 1 ta~ Kell to proy ide ade Quate prt LI eI(t io fIIo r ouLr COLLs5tal I! fi sher ieCs aa I ns-t Ill re ~ p'JII- to recorannnda tions ofl the Na Viion a .Ndv isov, Ce(omm~aittee oi le a and .\ h c inl hot hI U and I 9 3, \''\ \ Nait i onal MIarine~ Fisheries, "bcr Ice .iS fina i o :1a Ni onla I I'iI an for j K r ria II II hc a a e', i cI , conIIs i den rs 1) oh Icm a:r i -~S es , and LIs vQ I i I i t a e, r :a,: t I ill anI i~ zI ,li t broaI 0d oual 't for al I i rat rcrstvcd cuat I t i C III dt.'~i L~11 in'' til.-' CL(tLat nC of thle !_a' ir asII I Iea o: t hie HI, a t cid ta:1t es . lInat dl iracnsac' ol" lv ill -Wlit I ''I t c ri tihe rolIv ()! x GtIr aianeat iln e xparad i rag .�rid LI(' cl .I'p a a'' he Liat i I ~i :t ionl I! ,v~a i I Ib ILC I' i >hLr'c I- '~a rcc, r~k I pa'' V'e I .1 S t i'ra coaij' it, i. x IltL I as I Xa LI nitaI t tVV 0 tlIIeCr i IIo vtk cid a cnc a CS Li r' als -o aIdd ness in li lIt erril~l x es or'fl alaag':ie rdaI I uc at i il of f I sh1er' ic' L'es S i'C(1 " L-4 Iii1" ex t C IIdcti I II, i Ji i c t a on Iat --o I e.F0-C X, aIpm Ic , t he tori: res -5- Uffi L' of c'iiaiologv ~~.5'ei is pic-c'aat" ix 'icId(t til re tic I-C SCt 0) :' t h1i '; onMITIa itt Ce , tlic' Ca criat' t' (oae 'r c C aa aitl i t C't' , laid t lit' Sercbat e Nait icnai I t:c:arm Io icx' -Intlvix I i n a In arait i otis e xaan i nt i ola of P recilsn arid btar'i !pc t cchrao I -1,e i rII 11 . S. f isher0I.ieCs , IN i t s 1ec Ci :1 I :'oai, ide , ra t ion ub- tiarl Fcat .Ior'a of -an exteaided f'isheries icLirnisdic't i oll. I t is apra trait l'roaa1a Ill t liL'5C -,Qaa'ctL'S t ha t ~alapl I UppL. Irt nra it iL. d Io ex ist foLr st rt_'ngthen ~irII. tht'v e illan I is F a111Ig i aadaas t rV , h)ut the reraaF C~ in1 to 0 e t ranl sla~it c d i 1 it ep' iiC Iejt L-i. Ir'eaarIt'ais fo0r f'U turX- incltas1 Nt i' ari1d C'riaet at i fai '' rtlivc-rfo re ,reqruest i air thIat (;AU ur'ader't ai~ 60 L..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 November 19, 197S a study, to de I i eII~te pal iCV iSS LIC5 ot ions, :,nd Cos t * ~ ~~~~~~ at re v i talI i zinIIs thIe Ii S. COMICr i a I f Ih Iiu IIidot Iv IHoweve r- , the StuLd V shoulId n~t InIC I JIe aqual C LiI t- or t as this willI he tile sub jecct of' sepa rate coils ide rat ion by thle (ommi ttec. 1he jintend to LISe VoUrI stLud inl ro rilu l at i II co cp r hells i ve Ileg islIa t ion co r develoV c Int and utilization of' our f-ish and se fihreIsoul"VIs and in Ito riul at in5 a Natioinal IIi skyei es Po01i cv. "i ILant the GAO stutdy to sc rve two broad [urict ions-; P Vrox idJe anl o) icct ive anla i si s of01 noohe iL.1 ol, areas whe re presenit prooralfll Inav be imnideljatiItc tr non 1- cost-el lect ive, or where add it ion:Ll proo-amns arel jeiwcd.J lFor example , d'cii Ciclici Cs inl the CD11I ill-4nt areas i i const itute I irit fins factors or ''ckI in~s" coot ihobt firii, to presecnt diff'icult ics iii thle iidast ry ai. adeqtLiac v ) I' theI b .ol I ; i calI k IIoi, I cd cc base~ and t, i shIICr iC s I senI'c h cl Vi tu I ' land mmaabmc ot for ass ir ill, a i. coniser\it ion and use al1 the re""miect. andi' Cor a ssuiii nm all inidus trv st roctuto, me hi c h :e nin < ;i fair. and equitable ]-:ts 01- lctulir -<II ivecstlmicl o01 partk icipat ing i she r'-Aem. C.educa t ion an1d mapm r--the idea tc thle work f'or- co to pl--v ide the miec-Lus: re sK i I I s nlol, anld inl the fuLti.Li i: hhi ch cnisII'P r J :moderin , collillt i t iC ve'i sh fins inidust rv% inl the Uniiited `;tatcs; J. d :deViUaCV 017aai JV ihIcbL stat iStical , v,:0001)11ic and tin ekt anlal ySis JAta I~ t11c i iddo~tlr anld Coermotcapab ilIit it..s Cto proe\ilil nieeded in ~ormat ionl of these, kinlds iii aI ti mmlv [ash i oil C. ade'o ac.v and cost -c ". Ct i \ iles t o: innoic i ;II asist anrce p~rogain~- :Iva ti I abl to i olis segmincrts OF the fishins" iiidnstrIv%. 2. ClI ai fvN th role of0 I~ erVel an 0 VG' Il.141th 'Ill Ill til D tV sector iin thle st ructure and funcLt ion lis~ Of- lrpIm \,]j0 ~sectorsof whatwe voll1ect ivel- "'aIeor to istcA-nr i can 1-is511ins ijidutisIre. f~C aJei teUeCe hoth i in th-L ')reSUIt sepa rati on iot . pis hI it ic vs .J roles as; I., k. I a i C IlCa r i Ild i ca t tioils (0 f there nC[ewd o Lit] i t io ila I I .ieJaC, L.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Page Four November 19, 1975 voInvolneent is nc sare- or ecsi rabtIe it' the rev i tal I iat ion of' tile injdtistr is to oL:cur- ouicklv and eff ic ientity o a SSi St VLu inl desi'gning y'our StudW to serIVe 'Ahe t o, br-oad fuinct jions iust elnumerated , wC. tilfer these Iot I It OW i 1QuesL C~t i OnlS as exal:11I Cs of ')tour inf!o rl-at ion nee'ds ;and 1:one c'Ira s. II heC " r in tended onl I t1 turtlt - he conx tcc thle ofse0 what te ne-ed to know, an~d m't to coiistit-uto a I i s t o I -it em iiC. :edcot racton 1 o] i ga tion's f.rom G.\O ; thII s s t ud. - -lihat niat jonal benefits acc roet fromp a str.~ng ~~~~~~~~~~~ildLth ica X' i1 sh i i~ in s ic ;;h t s h iI JLIS t r'- V' s co tr1 -i huLIt io t1 the nIa 1 It in a 11l and Jcolla! econoil i es? l o the naltjoi oa Al- l ere Jo oppoCr timnit es I i L. 1oe r C eCC. t Ic'- t o ia~ t Ion ;11d -lol Ih of I Ih. Ahe iic an -I i-* i II i in Indn t I'V hhait r oue ceCS a rL aca V i tabl cI C iphra1 i c a IlIv an I~II i t [i n wa t IILIust rx-"C' sct o1- It1ti i~i tn il id Vt enIL ) -l I ill- p:tc-nt iAtI e ta-. t II amd dt-k-e I opirieit he :i a ,-CC,- t cd J I i>\ J cii d 'I I'ij d L t i onl.' INh a t arieas %,er C-c o t aIec t L. d - 14 - ub~ito-~ r.ac I-- i Jill i IIi t i ndust rv r-owt h aid Q1eVe toL i . '.Ilat a ec- tile pi-c'sc:11t inst it Ut iOnl:�i barr 'I i CrI5 to in-1instI-V tceolo- C . .,r.e g i'i i i n-, i , I a ho r, et c. technlo I oge I ig a - (a thle If.' S. la rvest ifi nc sctor I,:tne C I ore i on iiiterc-st -ceo (2 (1 Vi th e.xtenlded -J Lir i sLI i c t ion?'. 'bA ,t i s th 11Ci ' :)ie t of1 oi Jci 'i -.! ill)- I J i Ced I I s hei i C5 vs)I thIIC- c~~~tH~~vt it< ILC O ti~ i h I . . II i du r ia t t 1C' irlpa & t u (0c'r~ C-n sIs 1 ci Si LIs i SCI L. ct L, fuI , :O;>]Tnodmc it ies o.n the. l 0i1, I tI I I. Ia It pc ot tiiaicia t - isIii& fA El he I j t IIt u Co eCI IIiiilcii I t iL'. i J:de t St iii' I 11(11 t~~c ccpc-t it Ic v '- t in atl 6 2 APPENDIX I AtPPENDIX I Page I-ive November 19~, lt9'S - - ihat -o rmfs ot1 assis 5t ance to til ho I i J us t rv 11 ht he jus ~t i I'i c d? Fia t j s t he (;o xcrI naellt ro] I . i n 1)roces C_ SI 1 andI mal r ket i II ~ ot Ceaj loOd? IS the 1 v osnILt i IId Us t rV S t ruLl in IoI d to 01. l-ct iveel v do more Onitl 011 i? F or exarip 10, shoulId i t do more mia rho't i nv, and~i 0H ucesillg .ini, or research and dove loplrnont'? I Is'S , how mi tzt thII s qo r k hec finanI k-c d? - tha t cal Giovernmnent do to st i mult I : itt c'e a. u lICadev shIi p inI t he Amer-i can C i shIIe i -i dus t ro% e it her- coupie rat i vel I xOr i ndepc.thlen t I v , that I-iI I resu I t in a St ronLCr t and Mo re Comtpel i t i pos it i ("t in h1o r Id C F Il sho i CS? h-11:1t Gox C 'ionvi 1)rogt, ns c an bce conIIs i deroI d t o ; t ren it hIen thIIe tJ . S. C i sh ing1 i lid ;ttsr C.' I I poss: i 10,I idenit i 1-v thle coSt S and hotte fi t s ofC swich [;ox .ritinc IIt p rog railns To tho ox tent poss ibleI t he as CS Snillt s VOLI -ke an~d thle limd ing's you rceach -should hlit, I' 0 rateL in ou tep -II U11I r1)0t so that various Gove rnilleit and inidus tiN ro at i ens nvcessalrv to St rengt hen tile 11.S. C i Sh1 ingi i 1JUS t rv% Itre :onIIs tiedrud presenlt I:Cdoria I jirog alits a re ova I LIated f Ior Cost -01 tctl roel.ss necessar", inivestmenit anld operai I i ]),I costs SU io r t 1ill or OUrYS1 I shre imdu St re a coMInet i t i VCo[ pSit io in i1.5. it I I.-S ixo rI d jmairkVtsz a re S t Imla teCd , iC pF ; ib Ic I t U ! vtii t. rI' th1 recommetnded souirces of "und i tIII, ; atd a pp top~i Ia It I od t~JC t I ro I Ies- iln roeoinmoinded progrtmms o F act ion a r o site. csted. PlFease idettt il'e to thle ext ent prac t i Cali Fe ii hi : tevo t no 1hOF mod if! i ed IlegI i S I at ion you f i td is neceded to :c::pIi si t he IM I-IosC I s t r Ltlipt honCin 1g O Li d omtost i i -attI di I <t at I, a t L.r1 F: i na I I v ,i t is Sour deCS i ro and i IIt o It t f~ , I thr 1oi t <C ro oi. te anld analI v~scs not hie unttlecessari Ix. Jupl ic tt i ve a I(- eor t S Past or presetit of- the Natijonal Mar inI :ISle Pihr i S rc ice, the rIcC Of c of Tcchnollo 10gy A Ss-e S S 1enIt or 1, l others;. FThIe - ~~~~~~~Nat i orna Mar ine F ishetries Service has a r reat dci Io itII CO rmtat iol land petsor~at 1 expert iso whi chI i- r it i cl Ito t ho succe:ss luIi coiitplet ionl of thiis GAO studY. llitrector "'-honlitie. has per~sontall zlassuredl us 1, his toad itts t ) pie i idc dat'l amnd dat a att:t lvsos tl nSupport of, your twotk, ;ni to coupe rat tithe you howex er ho canl. Mient i OttIIas tIS c1 ie;d. liven Tmade of' the on'-goine. OTA Study, amid technoloi.\ tJSSC., -CILttt . %c 1; si'r that you cousm It. Fareel v with Iiothi t hc se tic tic tc> ~Illd t~~~ ~~ itI toih Ilo ent Ioo if tis ,as Syo)u deLemII Jc t tS I r; It cI cs Im ran tItI CIO fr th II~ CSil it o10f in fo COi. 1a t io 0 i is> 1 d1 i c o s as to avoid ditp i i cat ionl :ad best p repa re ill' Ilope it 1,o 63 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I lPagc `)ix Novcmnber 19, 1975 sseck. B-cause anal vsts in thc Cong ressijonalI Reseairch ,Carl ice of- tile i. i brIr F ofI COnIIg I-CS S re.- rouLIt ill lx1 in11VOlIved in1 L as sist ing L th1i s Comm it tee anIId o the Cr Cong1t~res s ona11L Comam it tees hIa vingI interests in the area of' mar inc fishing- and the Ifihn nda iv , ith t e aon rs getyumyws om tai liaso 1t the ,o rssional Research Service, ais appropriate, durim". thes course Of- vour studv. Since we recotin e: th is is a b)road LinJ st ii I Isometha t I ooselIv defIinet d set I' tais ks , tw knlow peCr i C d i c mieet i ne Cs w i th us anld oilr s taIff wi' I I be valuable in assuring cant inued agrcellclit oil this assessmlent an~d thet. charaJcter of' Vor I-inal I product. le, I' ant to have vourStuv reult, if possitblen laJtCr thanl Sep~tembejr 1, 1976. I t IS reCogn ~i__d thaLt the (;CrA t l.akes of f-CrS the pot ent i al 1- ir sirs ta iii illo a subs stant ial i she rv . Accorjid i n I v tghOL1 i generl Il- unlderstoo.d thajt thle iln i t i alI t hriis.'t 0 1 i t S I II he i th -,ati~tcrrcvons itShould as beV II' ue- t Cod thallt is reouce beI_: S)comeC ;I va i I ablI Felad be 1o0rc L'e rent o -11 I ou t LdV tcarui, a sirli a r aissessmenlt 01- 0D[o r- rt all I i- forI r i-e it aIi :at ion ci the (rca t lkes colninrcl .i alI Ihe e .4 II I c k )Q I bI tide r t aI kenII. Ike Grea t ,Lakes st udv, %we ac gr e* ! va be vs il'",-i t tecd inIId 1)epen dent tl an d )s CbseLIuenIt t 0 the1 a~~ ~~ V Fk U t L) cuI~ Ie io I' th11e maI inII si nd VhLit , hop f0 I I y' t han II a rc h 1 1 97 ~~ lit e ~~~r e Iv 010- 'U ,M ho -' l ' l R ,I C ibc,,lnl t v e on [Ic Pri th, Fiis11 Ra IIk i ng kI ill o ii t N.Pan] and~~~~ICIot Cha i ~ I dl le 1:u se k.. t io'.bouitte lnbe anid thle K:i v i I1o11ntei 64 11k APPENDIX TI RPPENDIY It UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 RUEIN,, CED7-244 COMMUNITY ANID ICOOM IC DEVFLJOMENT DIVISION MAR 16 1977 The Honorable Philip E. Ruppe House of Representatives Dear Mr. Ruppe: Your letter dated February 25, 1977, elaborated on areas of interest to you in the GAO study of the Great Lakes fisheries, which is being made for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Member� of my staff met on March 10, 1977, with Chairman Robert L. Leggett, George Mannina, Legislative Assistant, John Bruce, Minority Staff, and Jeff Cook, Staff Member to discuss your interests in greater detail. Ir light of that.discussion, we plan to --provide historical data on the Great Lakes fisheries, --develop information on the present management of the Great Lakes fishery stocks and identify additional information that may improve the management, --evaluate current Federal involvement in the Great Lakes fisher- ies and identify additional Federal efforts that might be taken to assist (1) the States in managing the fisheries and (2) the industry directly, --assess the possibility for a Great Lakes aquaculture program, and --develop information on the Great Lakes Canadian fishing industry. Work will be performed in the eight Great Lakes States, at appropri- ate Federal agency locations, and iin Canada. We expect to be able to provide a report by October 1, 1977. If you have any questions regarding this approach, please contact our Task Force leader, Mr. J. P. Glick (443-8691). Sincerely yours, Henry Eschwege Director cc, Mr. Mannina 65 GREAT LAKES WATER SURFACE AREA Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake State Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario Total Percent (square miles) Michigan 16,231 13,037 8,975 216 - 38,459 63.8 Wisconsin 2,675 7,387 - - - 10,062 16.7 New York - - 594 3,033 3,627 6.0 Ohio - - 3,457 - 3,457 5.7 Minnesota 2,212 - - 2,212 3.7 Illinois - 1,526 - - - 1,526 2.5 Pennsylvania - - 735 735 1.z Indiana - 228 - - - 228 0.4 Total U.S. surface 21,118 22,178 8,975 5,002 3,033 60,306 64.0 Total Cana- dian surface 11,120 - 13,900 4,940 3,920 33,880 36.0 z Total Great H Lakes surface 32,238 22,178 22,875 9,942 6,953 94,186 100.0 x- A.PPErtD[X IV APPXqD[K IV REASOgS -OR OLCLINES IN FISH1 SFOCKS Reason(s) for Species Lakes decline Atlantic salmon Ontario .eterioration ani blockage of streams and exploitation Sturgeon I 11 Exoloitation and destruction of soawning streams Lake trout All I xploitation and, except �or for Lake Erie, also se�a lamprey Northern pike Erie, Ontario, Destructicn of spawning areas and Huron and exploitarion Lake herring All Exploitation, environmental changes, and conmpctition with introduced soecies Burbot All Sea lamprey and environmental cnanae Chuis All Exploitation, competition with int'oduced species, and sea lamorev Sauger Huron and Environmental change and Erie. exoloitation Walleye All Enviromental changes, exploi- tation, and destruction of spawning streamns 31ue pike Erie and Environmental changes ano Ontario exploitation Wnite[ish All Environmental changes, exploi- tation, and sea lamprey Yellow perch Erie, Huron, Competition with introduced and Nichigan species, exploitation, and environmental changes 67 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV EXPLOITATIOt1 The lake sturgeon was one of the first species affected by intensive exploitation. These large fish were abundant in all lakes before 1900 and freauently damaged gear used to fish for more valuable species. Because of this, lake stur- geon were extensively' fished, often to be killed and thrown back in the lake or left to rut on the beacn. Commercial exploitation helped to deplete both lake hierring and whitefish stocks. Historically, the lake herring tad Deen the most productive specie in the Great. Lakes, fre- quently contributing up to one-half of the catch. Before the collapse of the herring fishery, recorded catches were sometimes greater than 20 million pounds annually in Lake Erie and ranged as high as 49 million oounds for all lakes. This heavy exploitation, as well as interactions with environ- mental changes, are the probable causes of the collapse of the herring fishery. The whitefish, a Dreferred and heavily exploited species in the early days of the Great Lakes fishery, suffered stock declines as early as the 1360s. however, the first collaD e was recorded in the late 1920s when the dee traD net was introduced into the Lake Huron fisher'. The whitefish was extremely vulnerable to this new equipment because of certain behavioral characteristics. Subseauentlv, the invading sea lamorey contributed to additional depletion of the whitefish. %1ARINiE INVADERS The sea lamorey invaded the three iooer Great Lakes in the late 1930s. The lamorey selectively attacked the aative predatory species and caused a collapse in their stocks. The lamprey first deoleted the lake trout and other aeeowater predator stocks. ChLus, normally prey tor oredator Lish, became a valued commercial fishery and a prey for the lamprey. Large chubs were depleted by the lamprey, while the slow growing cnubs were exploited by a new trawl fishery and the conventional gill net fishery. This situation was con- ducive to the growth of a small marine fish--the alewife-- which had long oeen established in Lake Ontario. Like the lamprey, it probably gained access to Lake Erie and the- otner lakes through the Welland Canal, which byvasses Niagara Falls. Because the predator stock became denleted, the alewifo population increased and soon dominated the fish stocks in '33 ~ ~ ~ ~ APPENDIX Il APPENDIX IV lakes Huron and Michigan, adversely affecting coioeting soecies. An alewife fishery, limited to Lake ichigan, was developed in the early 1960s for -his tremendously abundant but low-value soecie. ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Environmental changes have alJ,o had adverse inmpacts on fish stocks. For example: --Construction of dams have blocked spawning streams, preventing the spawning of Atlarlic salmon in Lake Ontario. --Destruction of sDawninq areas through draining of swa:nDs (marshlands) has deoleted northern oike stocks in lakes Erie, Ontario, and Huron. Deterioration of water quality has or,Jably nad some adverse effect on fish stoc; 3, but the extent of the effect is not known. 69 APPENDIX V APPENDIX V STATISTICS ON GREAT LAKES COMMERCIAL HARVESTS m Table of Contents TABLE 1 - U.S. GREAT LAKES CATCH BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCHr VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 2 - U.S. LAKE ONTARIO CATCH BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 3 - U.S. LAKE ERIE CATCH BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 4 - U.S. LAKE HURON CATCH BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 5 - U.S. LAKE MICHIGAN CATCH BY SPECIES, VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 6 - U.S. LAKE SUPERIOR CATCH BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARIOUS YEARS (1879-1975) TABLE 7 - U.S. GREAT LAKES CATCH BY STATES (1935-1975) TABLE 8 - U.S. AND CANADIAN LANDINGS BY SPECIES AND LAKE (197-/5) FOOTNOTES: Blank space - Data not available or catch was less than 500 pounds. a/Chubs included with lake herring throuoh 1949. b/Beqinning with 1944, the catch by Indiana fisher- men in Michigan waters is included in the lichiqan catch. c/Lake Michiqan is wholly within U.S. waters. 71 APPENDIX V TABLE 1--u.s. CREAT' LAKES CATCH Year Blue Pike Cern Catfiss (note 33 no~~~te 03 ake Trout feke Wh itef ish Sauner sheepsblead 18719 - - - 15,716 6,809 5 1889 24,662 12,597 (1) 5,466 1889 - - - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~53,110 11,202 I 15, 16 2 -- 1890 - - - - 49,959 12,899 -4,180 - 189 3 -6 I I - -181 --- 1 897 4,901 -) - 49.-40 12,949 0 ,605 4,907 - 1899~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,.3 3,6 - - k4 6 1049583 3,067 1.06 3 119 03 4,975 4,123 - - 39 , , S1 16,2',j 5 , 037 2.0 14 731 1906~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2,3 ,9 - 49, 13 12 7 6 ,8 06 2,5 57 1, 489 1914 1,Bn - 37,9 5 9.9!3 5,274 4.561 - 1915~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 18900 - - -, I 10 ,8 9, 4 , 031 4.5',2 3 - 1916 9,431 - - - 30,463 9,994 4,692 6,191 1 9 17 .627 7,19 3 4 46. 110 5,662 4,3 3 4 - 191' - 6 3 ,0 10.9 3 5 ,4706 2,045 - 1i 1, 713 40 - -~ 40 6 12, 417 4 ,2 43 2,6952 2,150 1920 4 , 000 3 - 0,6S'j0 1 0, ''' 3 ,2 75 2 ,9 26r 19844 :921 2,u 2H,4,9 15, 3 23 ,3 65 5004 2 ,93j5 192 1,436 5,837 - - 2,12 11,s-'q 3,948 3,409 1,415 1923 9,blI - 34,1 '69, 3,467 3.312 1,621 1 924 9 0 ,i 6 - 3 51 ' ,9 ,2 ,4 1925 10 - 63II ' ,9 ,1 ,2 1926 9,'2 671 - 2 I,~ 37 509 2 ,551 9 . 1 927 73 3 - - 3,39 104a 5,x 1. 4,3~60 192 4,n3 C. 4 ' 3 94 2 ,7 1,1 293 3 1 9 29 7 4 2,O0 - 2",9 10,O5 4, 7,76 7 1 ',54 2.981 1 93 11 -, 3 - 2 91 ,I0,1 2 3 1.4 2,906 1 931 12 , 4,145~ 2 - I 10,6-f 0(' 2,2 I ,63 5 I19 32 4,. 4, ,7 I 1 1079,4216 193 9 13 394 - 4 19 6 963745 2 ,30 3,2 13 8uS 390 - - 3,'9,3.12 2.5 393 7 9 '3 10 99I4 51 40 204 1937~~~~~~~~~~ 41 1 542 - - 2 3I160 4 , 4,'6 1493, 4444 2 7 -r 2 9,'32994 341 193i 9II 1 C, 323 - 9 4 8 , 3,905'52 3440 5 3 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 81 4 9, 3 ,59 . 1941 3,PS 5,'6 - - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 25, i 3 10,53 4,64 9 4 7~ 1 9442 62 '' 49 96 2 21I 1'4 3 0, 4,1 32 1.3 1 4691t 3394 3 11 3 - 6W 13, C 7 ,6 ,5 , 1944 14,9'4 31 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20 O96 13, 225 6217 32, 4 1944 7n49 8446 - ' 3,4989 1 05 4,546 1 9 46 3,1 4 4 39 1.0 - 1 ', 7.4 4,99 '9 4It33 14474 31I 9 41 130 1 3 6 - 4 24, 3 5,42' 11,59q4 393 3,39 1944s 4 ' 17 1 - 30,931 4,u12,217 25.? 3.737 1 94 9 1 4 ,.6 4,, ,69A 1(,7 - 9 90 3.39 9. 396' 3,8 195 6, 4 ,2049 1.1 4 94 14 1 7,'6 3,2 5,14 1 4 88 2,328 1-35 2 4 1, 152 2o ,3 3 2. 44 2.1 3 97 3,6216 1957~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 1121 231, 6 i43, 6 71 u , 3, 5-77 1953 n 1~~~~~~'9 46 163 1,4 3 I294 14 1,34 1954 6 ~~~~~~~_3 2,144 10,994 2, 2.28 74 3,752 13, �69 6,74 11,367 1 2.1~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I 193 IS 1,625 1996 6,,69 6, 03 , 11,4~~~~~~~~~~ 430 I k,7 1 1,4 62 13 3,5 . . 3 I3 I , 1, 139 1 43 31,I9 1,57 3,82 1 I~~~~~~ ii I ' 1,07 1 1,681- F 619 2 2,e4 133- '' 343 1,9,' 6.953 1 3-4 78134 5 3 64 7 1a6,~~~~~~3 9,74 1, 1,16 1.32 ,21- .9 I9 1 46 130 1,2 125.02 1 3,5 196i 1., 1,23 84, 7 87 - 41 52 196.~~~~~~~~4,, 2 131 7,17 6 ,>2 1,43 1 45793 196~~~~~~~~~~646 I 9,, 4, 1 1,4 4 ,.172 146~~~~ , 111, I .3- ,04 2 31515 199~~~~~~~~1 ,9 , It. 5 234 - 2.411 IV- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,5 -7 4 15,0 '9' ~~~~~~~~~~~ 996 ,, ,.-3 1. 4 3,7." - 649~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 49, 412 - 41 92 4 14 146 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~439 -' 714~ I ~~~ t -, I 3 1~~.44 4,' 3 - I 7 146~ I60 I r 7 Lr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 APPENDIX V L CANA-11-:. CATO . VARIOUS YEARS, 1879-1975 s of PQ,-s Total Whi-e Yellow Pike miscel- Ur.it~e-d-Staites SuIesI-' Yellow Perch (Wal 1eye) Coho Sal"'r lanecuis UnitedStates' Canada and Canada - - - - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~44,37-0 66,891 9,347 7 6,2 3 8 - - 54,978 97,623 23,668 1 21 ,29 0 3, 8 83 - 8.541 - - 23,6-7 115,575 26,362 143,937 - - 7 ,0 21 - 37,i3] 111,550 2 8 ,6 46 14 0,19 6 - - 7,932 - - 3,467 107,582 26,629 134.211 - - 8, 10 0 - -8.318 9 4 ,93 0 20,541 115,470 - 1, 5 79 9 ,8a47 3,941 - 10 , ' -7 119 ,4 24 26 ,1I07 1 4 5, 530 7 ,91 1 33 7, 0C'? 3 ,7 88 - 3, 2 6 94 ,185 18,8 3 9 1 13, 02 4 6 ,9 01 2 22 6 ,611 3,9 83 - 3 ,969 113),31 5 2 4, 4 73 13 7, 7869 - 4 78 5 ,7 90 2 .4 98 - 2 5,13 103,407 3 1,7 31 1 35.11 3 - 694 6,118 3,194 - 14,724 I 1I1I, 58 3 8 ,279 149,865 - 3 43 5.,70 2 3,18 8 - 19,0491 89, 08a5 3 2 ,9 00 12 1.I98 7 6,916 333 4,259 2,992 - 6,374 97,439 37,798 135.237 - 129 3.972 2,902 - 15.822 106,181 39,187 145,367 - 19 3 6,608a 2,1 3 5 I 12.7 13 8 5, 4 00 30 , 546 115, 9 4 7 - 504 4 ,3 91 1 ,8 73 - 13.16 ~5 7 3 , 1 88 71,6 80 10 4, 84 8 - 841 5 ,2 62 1 ,9 48 - 15 ,65 9 87 ,7 41 2 9, 8 83 1 17 ,62 5 4 ,7 93 8 21 3 , 592 3 , 677 3 3, 45 81I,1I0 7 3 2 , 020 1 13, 12 7 - 30 0 3.,5 17 2,I11I9 I 10.05C4 78, 2 85 3 4 , 148 1 12.,4 33 - 182 3,626 1,702 -7,449 77,969 34,492 112,461 - 232 4,509 2.030 - 10.029 73,586 26,466 100,050 - 18 5 ,18 5 2 ,219 - 1 2 ,7-47 73 ,18S2 2 4, 7 18 97 ,90 0 - 121 4 , 9 76 2 ,36,7 - 12 , 318 , 9, 508a 2 7 , 847 1 0 7.3 54 2 287 5.,7 64 2 ,31.8 -6,15 6 2 , 027 27, 0 15 8 9, 04 0 5,666 1 55 7 ,897,2 1 ,7 37 I ,77 7 1, 17 4 2 7, 2 16 9 8, 3688 6 ,66~7 4 84 6, ,567 3 ,1I00 I 1,942 8 7, 4 12 2 8, 3 54 1 1 5,76 5 6 , 529 41 1 1AI , 109 3 ,5 59 I 1,3 8 7 ,3 41 2 7. 09 2 1 14.,43 1 8,19 5 2 53 1i. 4 2 1 - 5. 7 79 ,3 70 2 4 ,9 45 104,3 113 5.32 195 4.,91I1 3,0 1 8 I - 191 7 0 , 751 2 3 ,7 03 94 ,4 54 5,563 .8 5 16.i0 7 1 3, 1 59 I5 1 0 90, 8 80 2 5.,2 69 116,_149 5 , 826 I 39 11, 6449 3 , 494 - ~ 1,f b7 , 1I1 29 , 13 2 1 6, 143 5 ,6~75 6 64 9,747 6 - 3 ,jn 90 ,5~70 2 7 ,7 94 1 1 H.3b 3 5 ,10'7 4 3 4, 8 46 - - I .. 810 01 30 ,0 98 I 1I11.0C99 4 , 920 I735 7 ,95"7 4 , 58 - I , ~9 7 9 ,2 99 2 8 ,9 29 108, 22 8 4.,4 57 7 15 5, 3 04 6,495 - I 1, - 6 6 2 ,7 20 27,509 1 10. 2 29 4.267 4 69- 6 , 173 5 ,4 98 - I , 76,586 2 1.,7 70 9 8 ,358a 4.135 459 6,699 4,494 - 2.332 76,429 20,935 97,365 4.312 516 5,21 6,112 - IS268,261 19,206 87,466 4 ,4 34 4 60 5 ,4 03 4 ,4969 I 1, ,7 8 1 ,9 66 2 3 , 140( 105, 10 8 4 , 114 8 60 5,696 4 ,7~54 I 1,26 8 3 ,4 83 27 , 66 0 11 1, 14 4 4 .65 8 884 3 .2f6 6 6,2 01 - 6 8, 90.6 2 6,5~0 2 9 5 ,4 08 4,215 823 4,5.7 7,472 -9 68,621 24,147 92,771 3 ,6 5 4 97 3,51 4,795 -3 79,663 30,353 110.017 3 ,6s81 4 9 4 , 894 4 ,9 20 -' 3 1 75,525 3 6, 9449 1 12 ,47 3 3,557 807 4,574 6,6C2 - 10 79,748 39,866 119,614 2 ,9 63 1 , I a2 4 , -4 8 7,C60 - 5 7 5 ,2 07 8 , 572 1 1 3 ,778l 2 ,3)12 1 ,0(36 4 ,3 43 6 ,4 19 - 78,948 5,2 ,2 18 1 3 1,1 65 2 ,6 79 8 97 4,199 5 ,6 13 3 7 4 , 041 4 3 ,74 3 117 ,763 2 ,3 7,0 1.,3 24 6 ,116 6,56 61 - 6.97 3 8, 4 05 1 07 ,3 03 -.224 3,361 8,042 5,914 - 63 ,4 64 40 , 090 10 3 , 6 2 2 , 027 2 ,9 73 6 , 555 6 ,9 37 3 65 ,9 36 3 7.,9 18 1G03.-.54 II555 2 ,40 4 1 0. 79 4 7 , 085 - s41 6,1 4 0 45,3 68 11 2,50 1, 5 07 1 ,4 11 1 1.,9 46 5.429~" L-46 1,85 90 ',8.,5.1 4 1105.844 1, 44 1 9 49 1 0, 9 15 4 ,24q3 - ~ '6 95, 82 3 4 2 ,7494 98,61l7 1,364q 8 25 1 1, 71I0 1,4950 4 2 5 3, 5 59 34,0 4 5 67,F,04 1, -551 1,8 06 10,223 I 1,4 27 - 5 4, 1 56 43,579 9 7 ,7 35 I1.44 1 2 ,2 12 9 ,3 24 9685 - 6 7 , 726 4 7,8 1 3 11 5.5 3 9 I,2 92 1 ,4 09 11 ,99 5 6 73 9 6 81 I 95b 4 4, 8136 1 26.92 1.096 1 , 174 11.255 1 , 022 - 6 7, 3 24 4 7.2 149 1 14.~4 9 51 1 , 542 8 ,2491 682 - '2 6 6 ,9 649 55.5'4, 1 2 2.54 7 94 1 , 113 5,4911 5 73 - 70 ,330 40 , 167 11 0.5 57 9 41 1 ,2284 6 , 141 4 35S3~ 6 2.42 ~4 36f3,1I06 10 I),9 3u 6 59 I1,0 99 5 ,7378 5 56 1 ,34 14 9~4 5d,4.426 36ki, 78 2 9 7.1 I0 3 6 7 29 5,267 5 54 1 ,494~ -53 66.657 4 7 , H6 1 14'. ,4 3 1 ,1 68 I1,2 21 4 ,40 6 3 34 1 , 444 1,25 36.930 4 7,658 ~4 1 2 4 , 44 I1,3 24 1.,10 3 4 ,2 72 6 6 2 , 243 6,1 60, 6 57 4 0, 4 24 10 1,0 86 1.73086 1, 001 4.0 1 8 65 5 .., 776 3 ,3 42 9 82 I ,C54 2 , 430 3, 0 05 94 8 9 2 ,9 18 3 ,9 50 1 20- 59? 1 ,6 99 3 ,0 36 1 33 1 7 3 APPENDIX V TAEUF 2---U. S. LAKE ON4TAF s. Lake ilc:rrns3 Year lhul-! S f t- rf Is nctea) (nc' _,a ILake c-~ Lake Whitefish Sajqer SI 18~89 2 ,' 23- 1I9 - 9 - 4: 19- I9 - I) - 45 - 1689 7 4 9 4 - 32 1899 19~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 - -38 1 9 03 6 1 2 I1909I 1(10 --15 1 9(13 39 - 1 1 9 14 3 9 - 2 21- 1 9 16 50 3 38- 197 2 2 4 . l 191 10 76- I1920 35 - -44 4- 192 2 I - -09 - 192 77 - - 10)6- 1>3 34 - 130Q - 1924 109 - - 134 39216 22- - .-39- 1 92 7 22 1 6f 1 92$ 2 4 - - 14 199 4 - 4 89 it( 3 7 - 67 133 91 - - ,4 1 9 33 �2 7 --4 I19 34 1 53 - 34 1 4315 136 41 1 9336 2 8 I 5 1 9 37 6u ,- - 1 94 IS -) 4 6 1 94 123ll Ill 940~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~6 11 1a94 2 4u - 1 9 4 3 4 '6~~~~~~~1 (94 4; - 1 94 ~ 77 I I19~46 12$ - t, 31 1947 2 09 23 - 1343, 119- -9- I194 9 6 6 - 1 91 752 - 3- 33 192 4 66 14 -2 1953 O i 10 2 1 9 6 II 4 1 32 - 1960 4 2 1962 - 2 - 3 2~~7 - 1367 - 3 - 49 - >69 - - , - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~I- 1970 fotnt o n P.I APPENDIX V ES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARWOUS YEARS, 1879-1975 3"hcusands of Pounds) White Yellow Pike MisEC,,I- t' ed -1 T-C Sue]lt Suckers Bats Yellow P'er"n fwalleyel Whi't Perch laneous United States ''-arda and Canada - - - - - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~1,395 3,640 31,36 6.878 - - - - - ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~- 1,882 2,398 4 3 '4 6 ,60 2 - 74 - ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~85 653 2.692 4 3 7,525, - 79 - 35 - - 2,019 3,.4 46 4. i69 7,535 - 48 - 13 --33 9 28 3�74,598 - 53 - 169 5 -414 921 2..33,674 - 264 - 397 t o - 1,187, 2.31J 2. 7-5 5,071 - 73 - 22 8 - 655 1,073 2 E 2 3,754 I 128 -33 54 - 390 8 17 3.) 9 4,018 - 9 - 4 4 - 23 ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~208 3.,, 3,361 - 16 -6 5 - 20 296 4., 4 4,3 20 - ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 23 - 7 9344 51 7 0 - 17 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 a-7734 5, 35,597 - 13 - 5 - 55 628 ).4L0 6,228 - 20 - 3 12 - 50 4 64 5C 3 5 ,567 - 40G - 38 - 99 5,4 4 Q4 6 , 048 - 1 7 - 49 - 49 3 30 4.I 8 5 ,3 16 - 20 - 10 23 -17 1, 9 14 4776 ,49 1 - 20 -836 - 138 9 65 4 ,3 2 5 ,49 7 - 24 - 4 2 -136 841 4.V5,788 9 92 - '38 I - 151 593 4 .'1-15 5 ,9 69 - 40 - '829 -10 4 4 46 4 5 4, 69)6 - 66 - 2 4 22 19 4 731, 4 .Is 4 , '015 - 62 - 919 2 228 69 8 3 414 , 429 - 71 -20 - 175 8 5 4 4 7 7 4.,33 0 6 62 I I 6 2 2 26 9 48 4 . 557 - 51 I 50 16 2 28 662 4, 7 03 - 29 -9 - 177 4 42 3 , 110 - 36 - 11Z 16 21 2 , 74 2 23 1 397 - 134 527 '1 3,078, - 47 - 2 5- 200 717 2 , 2,948 - 5] - I38 - 2 46 7 70 3 ,4 91 - 38 - 95 17 4 601 3.7-i27 - 49 -9 4 - 176 6 16 3fl1 3,9 4 8 - 129 5 5d2 I 137 5'~ '-)4, 3 ,7> - 4 1 83 6 -14 1 ,456i 3,45 4,9I1 3 35 I 3t9 6) -3 17 I ,5,6 - 52 -413-17 59 3.6 3- ,724 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ 29 - 3 2 9 32 2. sa 283 -5 33 - 217 7 3 3 ~~~~4 9 94 4 0 0 3 - 29 -3 - 130 4 92 2.63 0 1 14 - 3- 4 - 125 3 84 2,442 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 23 2 4 - 4 122 46 ~ u 224,45 - I 8 42 2 - 126 3 66 2, 245 231I 4 2 7 - 09 2 - 143 112,3597 -8 9 -3 192,4 08 7 22 - ItI 116 498 24j2,908 3 1 9 - .9 I -16 66 8 2,95 0 7 2 34-- 54 1 96 225 6 5 15 3 5 4 1 - I 11,.4 2,22 5 5 6 31 I ik2 -12 231 1,4 3 2,17 6* 4 2 21 10 I - 10 10 -2,807 a~~~~- 4 2 1 46 2 06 192,20 3 1 18 6 ' I 1 70 263 2 '-8 2.,36 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 43 226 2 '1 2 ,27 7 - 12 8 371I137 255 bd 2 ,2 16 - 19 8 64I13 6 3 51 2 i' 9 2,4 60 - 16 9 2 1 1 4 4 9 5 2 33 1,94 - 1 4 >2 '6 8 4 2 332 ,3 2, 24 1 1 3 4 '33 i 9 6 2 67 2 ,262H -6 I 66 5 1 6 7 8 2 17 4 ,2.8 6 3 I 10 1 1 6 4 0 0 85S 2 37 1,4 I 8661 - - 12 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 1 :46, 8 7 2684 1 22 ,116 - 4 1 164 3 42 92 ,351~ - S - -) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~138 2 94 2 ,566 -6 1 19 - II 1 71 333 3,2 ,3 I8 3 2 I 31 - , 4 1 24 3 05' 3.211 5 6 C 64 14 12 6 2 92 22,24 5 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 24 114 4 3 00 2.68'6 7 6 - 49 I ,i159 32-14 19 2 - 631 1 233 27710 75 APPENDIX V TABLrE 3--U.S. LA96 ER1 Year l~ue 8'LKe Caor Carl i~h (roteal TL16e 'rout 1c 1879 -1 7 - 1,74 263 188 5 7,869 - - 19,35 5173 188 9 3 37,201 67 3 18 90 7 ,4 89 - - 3,6122 1 8 93 - 3163 6- 2102 . 1697 4,852 - - 19.567 3 189 9 4 , 545 3 ,634 3 33, 4284 2 1 903 4 ,91I5 3 , 547 - 8,7 94 1 11 08 8 , 1 34 8,893 - 1,9 1 9 14 0'.59 II12, ,, 0 24 - 1 4I108 6 2 191 f1,361 9, 61I5 - 15,9978t 1 6 1916 9,3i1 5,859) - 8,137- 1917 1. 6 05 ',..7 94 I 19 ,43 5 1 19 18 1, 2 :2 4,172 - 35,2I12 1919 1, 6275 2,961 5163 .17 , 846 1 190 ,96-, 4,162 557 12.8932 1921 8..944 ~~~~6,542 1,198 14,9,64 46 I19,22 10,359 ~ 3,38 7 55 14,022 1 9 23 9,683 3,21 - - 20,9 30 1 9 24 6,9 ,I3 1,261 I 24 t 21,9 j - I19251 lu4 7 2.1339 - 2,8 17 4 1926 91, 4u 4.204 -1,449 0 9 27 .31) 1b9 2 7,350 19~286 4,819 1,61 21 1929 2,2 93 21 12 3 b1 I 1 9 30 ll,19 Z I64 17 3 4 65 1 91l 12, 6 43 2 ,40)4 1 1 3 46 3 1 932 9.66k b 2 , 913 264 1 601.1 1933 6.7b,, 2,0667 116 4 1914 8, 45 (I60 - 9 1 1 9 35 9,8 1.51 43 72 196 199, .1I,4,7 - 6 21 1 938 6,69 2,209- - 6 81 1 9 39 9.041 2.4 - 717,- 1 91 9,0 4,1 2,46 4 62 2 191) 3.9 2.5 - 46 - ~ 22 1 942 1 22 2,440 1 - 4 25 2 1 I194 3 11.2 -,I232 - 6- 1944 14.531 1,992 - 98- 1945 7,772 2.3513 - . ,75- 194 46 3 ,01 1 ,'a881 695 6,6 3 8- 19 47 3.3 175 2 177-. 1 94 8 9 ,c. 196 2 13 -2 I19 49 1 4,Lo 2~ 3 4 867 686 1 9 50 6 ,I19 C.6I79 993 28 - 1. 1951 I .1-i 1 , '31II ~ 15 0- 92. 6.,7 71 3 ,002' 1,523 56 -1 193 8 , 04 4 I, 19164- 194 6, 4 7, 1.910- 196 6,9 34i I , I.69. ( C l5( 3,91164 ,3 60 'i I3 4 1456 6 4 96 ,41 I1,59 3 4.J16 1I4 91 196 4,, l,66- 1I6 l, , - 1 964'1 ..,C ,6 I - 1965U ,91 I- '9166 3.i 1964~~~~~ ~~ ,6 - 1930 3,4,)11 1 9711 3,3 ' 1 9 1 3 , , 684- I197 3 2 3 93 2- I197 4 3 11 I0 3 1,1 I97 4 f APPENDIX V AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARTOUS YEARS, 1879-1975 (Thous, nds of Po,,nds) 'Total White Y(.Iow [Pice mtisce1- un Ite3tte Stco eps he ad Smelt .3jc k e rs S ass Yellow P'erch a(InaIey) I aneoils United States Canada and Canada - - - - - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13,953 7 9,0)6 7 1,560 30,647 - - ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~- - 1,'601 2 7,705 10,s02 5 1 ,4 57 7 ,686 59 , 14 2 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~1, 07 2 - 3 ,8 30 - 1 8 , 069 6 3, 563 9,826 7 3, 1 69 - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ -g - - 200 2,1 52 6 ,s675, S, 2 24 8, 4 24 7 3, 6 48 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~1,361 - 2,595 - 15,gb7 43,136 9,412 52.548 - - - ~~ ~~~~~~~~- 3,253 1,529 1,035 35,154 b.654 44,607 1 ,14 7 - 1,628 1, 57 9 3 ,3 40 1,84 5 2 ,51 4 586, 9 12 1 U,0U6 3 683,9v75b 6 42 - 8 77 3 3 8 73 's4 7 9 41 2 3,9 37 5 ,4 03 2 9, 34 0 1,39Q - 1,810 222 1,756 2,733 2,215 42.466 IU,746 53,212 2,262 - 1,350 478 2,039 1,867 1,437 54,144 17,1J0 71,274 2,212 - 1,124 694 1,933 1,635 1,937 59,773 16,540 76,313 2 ,334 - I1,3I21 3 43 1 ,6 37 2 . 032 2,.7 84 4 1,19 5 1 2.6 22 5 3,8141 3, 0 13 I 1,0 58 53 ;3 1 ,2 59- 1,'619 2 , 399 42~,6b49' 18,780 6,, 42 9 2,9 82 9 911 1 29 I1,0686 820 1 14 51,479j 1914 9 5 7 0 9 74 2,11I, 9 953 19 3 2 ,7 75 6 00 1,'10 5 3 51 6 5 1 4,227 4 9,_9 3 1,926 - ,061 504 1,259 690 721 32,232 U1,812 4_,044 2 ,84 2 I - 14 20 8 41 2,1 9 2 1,0 38 7 64 46(,,7 17 1 6,4 09 63,12 6 I1.3 70 9 991 8 21 1 ,9 26 2.,2 65 506 4 0 , 898 1 7.685 56,5b3 1,456 - 1,038 300 1,670 1,137 946 44,377 17,772 62,149 2 ,2869 6 6 4 1 82 1 , 941 1, 0210 2 27 4 0, 2713 1 8 .97 6 5 9 ,2 49 2,365 - 905 232 2,458 1,431 913 26,644 10,997 37,640 1 ,2 14 I 1045 158 2 ,6 22 1.2 73 1 ,2 37 2 5,057 8 ,750 3 3 ,8 07 4,I318 - I , 14 2 1 21 2 ,7 481 1,3 64 9 52 2 3.795 1 0 ,06f7 3 3, 8 62 2 ,9~1 8 I , 13 19 2866 4 ,2 75- 1, 314 478 1 9 ,7 62 10 , 29 4 30 , 056 2,9I7 0 I - 12 93 1 55 6 , 043 9134 4860 168, 64 6 1 125 2s 19 ,9 05 2, 886 - 2 ,02 4 4864 4,.3 41 1 ,8 6 g 87 29 ,584 12.680 4 2 .2 64 1 .,.26 - I , 436 41s 9.,06 2 2 , 614 8 21 3 4 ,8U00 13 ,807 48a.860 6 2 , 145 - I .32-1 2 53 9 , 741 2 ,624 7 3 3 ,7 61 1 2,7 31 4 6,49i4 3,u07 - I ,525 3 94 3 ,4 34 1 ,1 I 1 ,370u 2 5,1I230 1 0.231 3 5,151 2 ,24 1 I - 10 24 685 1 4 ,2 18 1 , 3459 3 2 ,09I 1150 0 4 3 ,5-96 3,5 -~ I1,666 7 39 9 , 045 1 ,7sa4 6 15 30 ,2 n,7 1 4 ,429 4 4 ,3~26 3,5u1 - 94 6 664 2 ,05~1 2 3, 617 1,389 36 , 7 4 11L, 95"3 48 ,70O2 14 . 09 I I 1,03 43~5 1 ,750' 3,36 I , 4/6 26 ,9V25 1 4,.6 64 4 1.590 3 ,3)92 - 756 112 7 '5,18a' I 3,13 989 7 2813 1 4 ,5 01 42i, 12 0 3 ,49v4 I - 10 08 7 12 1 ,628 4 ,7 67 1,025 286, 6863 1 4, 261i 42 ,942 2 ,9 60 7 7,4 4 69 3,030 3 ,5'2 I , 14 8 2 2,9)44 9 ,7 67 3 2, 71 1 3,646 - 698 4 59 3 ,8b21 2,1 I , 42 0 22,083 8,950 3 1,01 3 4 ,54 8 - 9698 it, I ,959 2,97 1,4 71 2 4 ,1 31 1 0, 03 7 3 4,1 68 4 , 51 3 - 578 460 I ,253 3,222 I ,61 I0 2 7 ,11I5 1 4,4 83 4 1,598 2,4n2 456 s60 2 , i4 3.4s I , 2 37 28 ,8a37 1 5,2 55 4 4, 09 2 4 ,4uO', 4 26 08a3 1,3~52 5,s31 9 1,6 13 2 8 ,6 31 1 8 ,94 9 4 7 ,58 0 4,26 -, ~ 4 32 6 21 2,605" 6' 21 I 9 14 2 9 , 121 18,925 486, 04 6 3,230o - Sod 4 97 1 ,79''. 9,114 8486 19 ,8 16 1 2 ,3 34 3 2 ,1I52 3,1676 ( I 4 69 498 2,640) 4 ,02 1 6 94 2 6 ,5 02 1 4 ,92 6 4 1 ,42 8 3, 0 O5 - 34 o07 2,659 5 ,,1 4 69 2 34 ,2 44j 19,7)93 5 3, 34 2 2,299 - 6 50 1 , 141 2 ,5 54 5-, 4 65 4 76 2 3,98 2 1 6 ,8 66 40 ,84 6 3,593 - 5583 1,03b 2,326 5,892. 4 29 20O, 92 1 1 3, 14 4 3 4, 06 5 3,.55 5 1 6 27 6 9) 1 ,7 3 5, 1 47 4 71 2 5,3 51 1 7 ,4 17 4 2.,76 8 1,.9 24 3 352 1 ,3 17 3,.4 18 616 2 438B 27,3 47 2 3 ,3s69 5 0 ,73 6 1 , 730 3 361 3,298I 4,n3i 5 - I 9 4 53 28,340 28, 91 2 57 ,252 I1,6 14 - 256 2,.91I1 2 ,4 08 5,7Oi5 4 65 26,796 30 ,2 851 5 7 ,080( I1,92~-4 - 2691 2 ,366 7,054 6,232" 5143 30,744 4 4 ,6 82 7 5 ,42 6 3 ,7915 -2 3 28 1, 4 24 , 5 9$ 5 ,115~ 4 42 29 ,7 08 3 7 , O. , 6 6, 611 2,818 1 234 94 42 7 ,11 3,90I 4 29 22 ,575 3 0,7 51 5 3.32 6 4,6 086 15 249 dl 9,114, 1,/I 2 38 2 2,.4 33 31,5 97 54, 03 0 5 ,098 268 25',0 1, 7379 6,39 1.17 3 15 23!,2 56 2 9 ,2 19 50,477 5,.76b4 16 3 30 2, 1 92 3 ,89,4 4 . 424 1 9.,563 ISG,#'q 55,261 3 ,52.4 74 2 61 1,390 7 , '45 4 3 5 30 3 9 ,6 60 44,464 6 4,12 4 4 ,1I2'6 306b 2 24 1,15s3 5 ,8"L22 j 3 72 17-, 2 38 3 4 ,2 33 5 1, 4 71 4 , 544- 44" 244 1,I53 5 1 , 520 565 4 22 1 3,.3 54 25,381 36,7 35 4,086 3 1 97 1I,110 3,1 51i 43 3 46 1 3 ,52 4 35',, 0916 4 8,.62 0 2 ,1I56 9 18a7 1,2221 4 , 063 35 2 59 1 2,169)8 4 1.,4 26 5,4 ,12 4 2 ,560 3 1 77 1,0I,) 3 ,365 I 2 02 11 ,6 15' 37 ,730I 49),38 5 3 ,1 4 ' 1 141 221~9 3, 734 '1 4 2 02 11 ,9 20 3 9.4 15 5 1.3 3 2 , U60 2 1 73 1, 21I9 3 ,3 6 Zn] 391 11 ,05~0 46B, 02 7 5 9 ,07 7 1 , 047 2 12.13 1,1I02 3.325 ~ 7 4 2 43 9 , 546 31I, 755 4 1,3201 .4u 2 12'9 1-u0 2,644 4 186 68b,8a42 2 9,0 76 33.91i8 9)1 7 11 I 1n3 771 1 ,919 I II1 1 31 7,92 0 3 0,1I8 2 368,1I02 - 99#7 - 123 21,4 24 1.ba 6 s9 115 8,28 1 3 9 ,82 9 489,1I10 69~?3 I 114 29 13 23 7t I113 1 90 9 ,8 26 386067 4 8, 43 1 6854 13 I 7 1,9 141 12 33844 30,549 3 9 ,0 33 7 7 A ISULE 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i E4 Chit's Lneo r-r inf .r Carp catt ish (note a rt-a La,,, Treat Lke WL,tet 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 2 - - 7205 2 71 166, - - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 2,54 0 1,42., 1863 -; S . 2,1 61 2,3 9' 1 89n - I 5 I 1,7~, I 1, I3 1891 --3,435 2,816 1,6 ( 8 9 - 2. ,3 2 J , 62 1,4n6 18I93 41-9 3,0 1,5T 1694 -: - ,39 1,216 1695 - - 5 1,675 946 1696 - - 4 1,527 'C 1697 - -19 1,292 866 189 - - ~ 5, 4 06 1 ,21 9 591) 1899 6 --4 ,o6 1,460 6.6 1900 - - 2 1,732 055 19 01 -7. ,14 1, 6 )687 1902 - - 1 1,7,9 9' 1 9 03 37 -6 1 )?I 7 1,724 9 1904 -4 2 7 _9 2,016 767 19105 - - 1, 4 3 6 7 ,967 19u66 - 1, I 1, '966 79 2 1,j7 - - .1,b .,5 1.631 1.133 1 9 06 430 - 21 6 13 1, 3t,2 1912 I - t- 292 4 ,,s9 1,050 762 1913 375 - 91 2 ,91 2,163 1 19 14 14 - 75- , 1, 365 1 3903 1915 516 - 5(3 !,4~1 1,774 ~ 12 19I(I16 - 24 7~ 7 4 1.7 )696I 1917 1,14- - 214 4,411 2,2( 1 918a 647 - 7 42 5 ,4 2.6( 1, 4 I191 9 1,I109 36 5 31 4.36 2.0z22 1920 1,7-' -72 1,23a 64' 1921 65' ii 77 -14 1,36 1 9 22 1,lb, ii 3 44 4 i I, 4b 192 4 1I39 , 192 62 4 . 4 9.1 1, 3 19 27 (,oJ 1 77 S,"4 162 1, 9326 a tO 1 6 3 7 9 1.59 146 ( 92 9 1 67 3, 1,261"tt 1I.I I19 30 bh 62 I1 47.972 19~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~3 31 4 3 0449 4,1 4 1932~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ I.71 31 1 2,16b5 4,tC 19 33 43 .1 44 I -, oT, 3. '4 1 9 34 1,9 ,i 36 4 4 6 1 .5 '76 I193 5 1,u 6 I 1c- i1 ? 96 1, 740 1, iI 193 6 99 4 3 - -,2 1,402 1 93 7 115 i b , I, l4i 191ii 135 1 29 1.2 1 94 0 6,44 2 4' 1 4s 3.i m94 4 J 1 9441 66 1s35 2 6 ',,~ 114 2 I(94 2 397 v O4Jo 7 " , 1 94 194 j5 1 28U4459 19P44 1, 32 21 73s - 1945 237 34 I 4 3 73 l 1 9 46 1,6 6 2514 4I4n 1 1417 1I.3, 271 I 'I. ,I 1 94 8 3,4 9 1l I sY 4 I194 9 6 1 4 I95 1,1 I 162 46 - 191 1, 2 27 11 479 15 1,6 3 c] i92 15 3 1,36 3sI (0 1 2 1 195 4 1,43 256 .4 29-4 1455 1.3 , 35 I ho 1 9 16 I1, 1 3 36 3k 21 I ( 9 57 13 luI 27 5(1 so - 195 ,1 6 I .14 4, 7 1959 11 33 Z~ 2.1 31 - ( 9 6 (.Ii 27. 2 93 4' I1961 I,4 24 s,- 1 6" u -L 11 62 11 61, 17 , -1 I-b, I196 17 1, 4 7o 9 I7 - 1 96 415 I,3 1 1~,2 4i) - l 9 1,4 ( 46 3,1447 4 1 96 16 9- In - 1I6 i, m 1 I9 3 1169 1.. 9 2 IL ( 97 36 I147 25J44 see fOotnotw ~n P. 73, APPENDIX V BY SPECIES AND TOTAL CANADIAN CATCH, VARIOUS YEARS. 18,9-1975 (The-,sands of Po~nds) Total ..nite e110. p'lne 141scel-C L7n te a-St at s ;Id Smne~t A~.ie S.CKerS BaSS Ye_11o PfrtCh kWalleyej 1aneous In i tedS Sta tcs Canada Ind Canada - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ - - - 212 7,205 4,197 11,402 - - - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~6.226 11.457 10,136 21,593 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ - 107 - 2.417 - 3,324 1 , 4 29 110-20 27,1-49 - ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ I 110 - 1.01 2 2.1I04 1 0 , 330 14 ,190 24.5210 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~1.036 - _ 95 1,150 6,6 6 1 2 , 702 1 2 ,2 19 24.9 2 1 -~~~~~~~~~~' - .36 1,I02d 1,405 Sil 11,776 14,691 21,4~67 - - 2.~~~~~~~~1345 - 1,752 1,049 6317 14.816 11.312 26 , 123 - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~2.9~7 1 - 2,U2 0 1.98 598 14.6?7 9,938 24,615 - - ~~~~~~ ~~3.365 I I I 3,0638 470 14,470 9.501 23,971 - - ~~~~~~ ~~1,167 I 103 930 524 A 1 3 .'41 9.327 2 2.66 8 - ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ - 1600 I I 99 3da 6 26 1 2 .393 6.,7 52 1 9 ,14 5 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~1,317 - - 46 1818 729 1 3.,448a 8.030 2 1. 4 78 61 - - 1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~I3d3 2,072 1.789 1. a007 1 4. 32 0 10 ,2 78 2 4.,59 7 - - ~~~~~~ ~~1,710 - 3,566 9 83 881 14,1511 7 .4 52 21;601 - - ~~~~~~ ~~1,745 - 3 -529 9 45 884 1 6.8a1 3 7 ,6 21 2 4,4-6 - - - ~~~~~~ ~~2.814 - 2At32 1.359 794 20.003 8,047 2 8, 05.) 47 - - 3. 52 5 - 2 '4I3 Z 2,4 06 774 16k, 56 6 8,341 26.907 - - 2.853 ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~- 1.79v4 2.'28 660 1 7.9 89 ),475 2 7 .4 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ - 34 58 - 1,8'64 I 1,6 68 1,037 1 6 ,89 5 8, 2 27 2 5,12 2 - - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~4,020 - 1 .968 1, 263 980 16.860 a 8,07 7 24,937 - - ~~~~~~ ~~3,646 2 2, 125 1. 1221 861 3 7 ,8a21 7 ,24 7 2 5 ,068 8 - - 1~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~.671 I 1,2 50 870 2 7 1 33,0 75 7.642 2U,-115 - - ~~~~~~ ~~1.320 4.5 1 2 398 347 13,876 7.060 29,937 - - 1,580 -~~~~I'S 2,.323 416 291W6 1 1 ,258a 6.616 18,074 - - ~~~~~~ ~~1.1501 9v7 340 249 8.29, 7, 06 3 IS.35-4 - - ~~~~~~ ~~2,30b 1.371 1,067 39 5 1 0, 2 45 a 8.7 35 1 8.98so - - 2.2~~~~~~~-66 - 1.795, 846 890 17,212 9,3 9 5 2 6.6 07 1 I - 1.485 - 093 1,147 286 12,577 7.,765 2 0 ,3342 - - 1~~~~~~ ~~."79 - 34 .1,904 215 14,977 6.855 21.831 II- 2.714 - 3,37 1.360 2 27 1 5.2 42 6,619 21,'861 4 2 - 1.9013 - 4.5 444 191l 11.541 6~,324 37-, 86 5 A47 - 1,403 - 45 124 164 9.607 6,437 16.044 42 1,-8s6 -674 1,264 106 13.279 7,192 .20,47k.. - ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~I - 145 7 759 80 10it2 1 0,1I0 2 6 .8 41 16.943 I- ,7 3 - 4~ 4 S3 143 8. ,8 77 7, 32 ' 1 6.2 02. 5� - - 1.~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~374 - 52 4, 18 I a2 1 2,6403 7.,6 54 2 0.25 4 91 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~Ibn7 4 458 81~6 212 1 3 ,3128 7 , 539 20, 66 7 43 - 2 .41 - I :2)4 9 0 1 157 1 5 , 736 a ,8.897 24.603 11 3 I 1,8d73 1d I 699 a 81 9,99q3 7 ,6844 1 7, 83-6 8 I - - .76 - 0 7 I I'I 35 8.829 7 ,4A90 1 6.,33I9 3 - - 2.37 - 10l19 2 I 1 5.3317 6 .89 2 2 2.2 09 * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ - - .12 - 3625 I-, 16.4 6? 7 ,2 47 23.714 2 - - 2~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~.403 - 693 1. 5 35 10)6 1 5 ,414A 7.4 9 2 22,903 3 I - 3.990 4 ,7 1,636 105 33, 4 71 7,.8313 21,284 4 - a 213 -.63 84 1 4 ,39 0 7 , 550 2 1.,94 0 IL i ,786 - ';3 1.-,4 87 1 3,6 40 8 ,4 02 22.02 a - - ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 1.84 - 1 1 7 S 1,565 1 06 1 2,7 34 7 ,83 5 2 0,5 4 8 4 - - '.726 - ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 54d I .627 1 40 1 1,8a4 4 7 ,59 5 3 9 ,4 38 20 -o I- ,8d - I 01 1,5 12 1 2.,0 33 7 ,30 3 19;336 15 I - - 132 1 565 1.641 1 23 1 3. )333 6.4 44 1 9,77 7 I, - 1,43 - 5~28 I 1,'7 3 87 9 , 012 S . 6 62 1 4,67 4 4 23 - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~1.312 416 3,532 97 8,727 5,423 14.150 1 II 1.16 - 11 -5 ,10 4 1 24 .8.466 4 ,7 79 1 3 ,24 4 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~I - .44 - 975 3,0 169 8 . 630 4 ,41 8 I 11,028a 3 I3 - 126 -h 64 1 ,1 3 1 30 6. ,41A3 3.,49 2 9 ,9~2 5 4 3 I 5 - .54 1 4 37 67 5 32 7 ,4 75 3,029 1 0.50 4 3 - ,45 3041 97 368t 7,1 4 7 2 . 536 9 .68 3 1 2 - ,22 - l 46S 1 39 8,0O3 4 2.040 .10,074. 4 - -, 1,33 - 4 225 183 a 8, 836 2,798 11.6 34 12 - 3.022 - 518 ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~Si a 0 16 5,8 3,7 5 891 5 116 -77 - 60 23 69 ,03 4 , 762 9,835 1 2 18 117 -36 3 354 48 5 , 523 5, 7 42 1 1.,2 64- 4 2 27 - ,99 4 94 3 53 3 7 6 , 138 7.5;208 1 i.6 4 6 7 231 1 - I 114 4 4 458 I 7 35 5 ,498a 87 30 1 4 ,22 7 12 31 -1 I ,1id s 20 507 1 64 112a 5,4 21 6 , :50 31 , 571 5 5 I- .2 4 331 5865 3 42 I 356 4 ,561 1,'8 04 8,3165 26 296~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ - 13 35 415 12 I 31 3,6 I S 2,764 6 6, S98 24 91 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~2 482 - 3 153 32 65 334 ,8 44 5,3I8 5 23 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 5 I i -I I 5 113 67 5,094 2,685 7.'780 430 3 4 64 3 356b 340 2 7 S 5,041 2,600 7,'641 5, 78 1 2 4 54 1 6 5 c4 13. 352 6 . 318 3, 931 to, 251L 12 12 I 12 551 1I ~I -12 20 6 6,9 I8 5, 207 32 , 12 5 29 4 77 30 1 72 I 0 1 25 5 ,8860 4,175 I 30, 05 5 26 I 2 509' 1 7 50;7 3650 5 .2 06 3,587 6, 79 3 23 1. 438 3 -S3 6 7 7 6 7 4 ,09 5 3 , 967 8.062 19 20 36K9 2 ,630 31 4 ,6 73 3 ,56 7 8, 24 0 3 7 36; A 33 3 1 1.1 541 3, 7 69 2.937 6.,6866 9 - 24 I- 1,334 1 15 3,213 2 ,666 5, 8 77 I3a - 362 - 28 28 44 2, 678a 2 , 430 5, 109l 1 4 64 - 136 241 90 2.,8907 , .320q 5, 226. 12~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ - 142 - 168 2.4 11 2 , 125 - 4.53 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 3 14 1 5 9 7 13a a.815 2.7 5 7 .5,572 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~9 - 3 327 - 34 1.,98a4 2 , 397 4., 301 1J4 20 1 145 - 19- 10 5 1 ,9 42 2.154 0 4 .4Aa2 1 4I - 32 1 29 - 327 I 1,718a 3 , 311 5 .0 36 - - - ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ 2 69 1 145 3.,858a 3.,3 345.0 79 APPENDIX V 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C~ 7n Ilerc2 187 8 3 - Iu 2, 1o8 - 1,96 ,6 I892 - LI '6 6, 1I93 22-067 6 1894 2 23 6 4 1895 6 2 ,8 ''7 1847~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ - 314 7 I191 35 A 1331 1,3 1 Il9Ge 43 - 3 4 41 9 1 1911 - _ 5.6l 191 191 - - 2,I 0 ,14 191 - - 4 ll 8,94,6 191 4 -6 - 368,7 ~ 6 , 1q17 247 3.42 11.3-7 6, 1418I -j - I .73 8 ,'3 5, 1 9 19 - -) 4.9 , 777 7 , 19)2 0 - - ,376 5 ,0t61 6 I19 21 I .3 46 2,87)11 1922 , 749' - ,6t 7. 192i 1 '37 3,1906 1 9 24 2 7 - 1926 - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~~3. 40 s 1927~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ - - 4 0 s4 1928 4 -7 6 13 4.- 1729 G 3 3 4 1930 491 12 ,0*31 1 9 31 O3l 2227 I1932 >4 9 4,1 241 1 933 31 9 4 ,u89 I1934 1,320 3 7 6.4 1 4 , I193, 1,4 - '94 cl 4 2 4 . 196 '4ov 21 9 4 4 �' 4 , 1936 1 9~~~~3 ~ '9>404 4,4' 4, 1332~ ~~~~~~~~~ 1,oo 22 4 ~ 2') 194G I,99 49 u I~46 .67,6 I94 1 4,~7 3 1*736 1.4 3 ,4 67 1 9- 1 4 1944 1.21. 62 2 67 I 393 6, 1 946' I, 3 291 4O 3. 19l4 7 1,13 I19 .76 -,3 1 9 49 1,161 I 7 7,4 11 6, 1b91 1,11 9 1I( 1I7 ,65 4 II.0 19): .~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~44 5 1 6 .3 19)8 1.242~ ~ ~ ~~~ I 1 9 7 1'59 1.3S 7,796 98 1630 1,4 1s 2 1., 1 96 1.4 I7 ? 2 1,4 b0 4 1 14 64 I 2 - C? 44 I9 69 .1 , 4s I96 2, l4 - 4, I~67 ,42 1 6 I196 8 2,32 - 1,6 196 .19 I 7 6 112~ ~~~~~~4 1,2 I I194 3,4 4 , I177 4 , 1.LAKE MICHIGAN CATCH By SPECIES, VARIC'1S YEARS. j479-1975 PENI, (Thousands of Pounds: White Yellow Pite Coho M15ce]- Total LLsh Sauger Sheepsneaa Alewife Smelt Suckers Bas Yellow Perch (Walleyel Salm on lanresus United States - - - - - - - - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~17,433 23,112 - - - ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~252 - - - - 13,4930 23,485 - - - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~1,729 - 2.181 - - 1,424 26,0,07 - - - - 1~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~,801 - 1,9)44 - - 6,8l45 26,434 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- - 2,645 - - 5,893 28,239 - - - - ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~1,691 - 3,452 712 - 6,255 40,;,23 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- - 6,515 - - 3,603 42,726 - - - - ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- - 5.959 - - 2,792 38,212 - - - - ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- - 6.364 - - 3,727 47,02)4 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- - 3,079 - - 1,573 39,634 - 5; - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~1,119 - 3,234 284 - 1,029 37,547, - 2 - - 272 - 3,597 345 - 803 36.623 a 87 - S09 - 3.� 57 209 - 1, 047 A37 ,356 - - - ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~- 2,072 2 14 - 2 ,2 98 26.4 9 3 - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~- - 2.3is 1 64 - 3 ,3J59 2 4,31 4 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~- - 2,935 165 - 3,674 27.091 - - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~2,731 225 -5,696 28,201 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 -, 9 - - -290 216 -6,084 31,64 2 - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~2,263 275 - 2,89 5 2 1, 934 - - - ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~4,035 -2,101 196 -501 31,674 - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~1,92'8 121 -3,410 27,703 - 18 - - - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~2, 490 1 22 - 2 ,51 5 2 3, 922 - 16 - - - -2, 064 1 16 - 2 ,5 15 19,999 - 16 - - - 2 2,10u5 14 1 - 2.4 2 - 2 1 ,978 - 3 - - 1,536 -967 64 - 2,087 19,394 - 7 - - - -1 j73 Q') - 2, 292 is, 3o0 - I O 0 - I 1la311 - 2, 591 is8, 3 16 -12 - - - -1,5.12 93 -3,212 21.341 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 20 - - - ,66 82 2 2,6 97 20 , 434 -2 I - ,7,) 59 - 2 ,7 51 2 3,6 79 - 1. 51 5 52 - I ,663 1 7 , 990 1 3 - 709 - I J37 4 5 3 - 5 04 26 ,lsc~ 1 17 - - 2,281 - I A 46 7 64 - 4 86 26.9962 *7 - 86 2,786 - 1,2,8 56 - 309 24.374 1 4 - 98 2,224 - 955 105 - 247 19,305 114 - 909 1,890 - 1,009 167 - 261 21,002 3 10 - I1,031I 2 ,206 - 1,217-16 31 - 2 53 26, 0:-3 - 12 825 2,696 - ~~~~~~~1,7 40 99 2 205 24.43 11 I - 1,1202 2 ,6 66 - 2 506 116 - I 164 2 4 ,4 78 * ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ , - 1,28 2,332 - 2,490 78 - 1 43 25,63,2 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ . - 1,04 1,8 58 3 2.224 50 - 199 24,121I -14 I 1, 9- 1I, 8 54 1 1.,U0 45 , 234 2 2 , 4 5 1 213 - 4 ,2"2 2,017 - 2 ,5L76 43 J 16 0 22,601 1 52 - 4 ,775 1, 93J5 - 2 ,4 16 44 - I ')I 22,i31 I - 3,3)5 3 2 ,2 51 - 2 , t4 6 3 1 - 22 9 21, 4 13 - 13 - 2, 2 25 2 ,20 1 - 3 1 35 51 - 390 22, 13;5 1 1 39 - 5 2, 22 3 - 2.o67 2 77 - 40)5 1 9,215 2 21 37 - 101 2 ,37 3 - 1, 46,4 1 72 - 65b 22,092 - I 17 - 26 7 , 895 2 1, 47-3 2 37 - 4 30 22 ,3912 I 7b - 786 1, 621 - 1, 399 36 7 - 464 24 ,955s -57 I 1,131 1.,806 -1,3513J 6 36 15 37 2 7 ,023 4 41 I 1,54 0 1,81I0 I- 13 7 1,1I20 -273 25 , 57,3 - ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~24 , 24 17 1 ,22.8 I- - 144 1 ,34 9 -21 0 27, 0734 -22 - 3.399 1, 008 I- 14 41 560 - 172 27,64e -18 - 5,111t 7 44 I 1,9~57 30 1 2 252 3 2 ,0 63 -16 i ,181 820 - 2,26 30 - 21 28 ,81 4 I L i 5.3 6 09 -2v650 9 -21 7 339,2311 -6 - 5,416 6 84 - 3.5 50 9 76 - 186 3 0 ,016 - 7 - 7368 6 40 - 3,3 Z . 8a01 I 101 30 ,7 9 - 2 2~~~~~~~~~ ~~20 7 ,024 6431 - 2,v& 26 60 27,223 -3 I 1,356 9. 1 02 6 85 - 3 , V 1 217 -66 27.,77,1 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ - 12 64 6,004 6 12 - I 1,97 (82 37 20.6C, 2.,3370 J. 267 76 7 3 1, s' 11 8 -60 2 4,3111 3,1 95 .2 ,1 52 4 94 - 4 ,9)9- 97 I L 3 25,5534 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ 1 47 42 1, 546 26 3 - 4,0 J 67 -10 3 23J, 47 5 - - ~~~~~~~~~~5, 39 6 1, 20 3 2 99 - 4 , .-2 61 - 99 2 1, 0 21 I 3, 744 9.69 2 15 - 5,,,35 35 - 949 26,201I -- 14,0U07 9 27 16 8 - I -627 - 71 26,941# - ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ 9 2400 4 1.1I1I ( 4 04 - 36 24 - 73 4 2,.76 4 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ . 41,95 1, 224 391 - i,s 16 1,464 1 37 58,945 1 - - 3~~~~~~~~~~7,194 1, 789 4 65 -10 I1,9~99 16 7 4 5 ,91I - - 2~~~~~~~~~9,248 2,.4 81 789 - 14 1, 1 44 262 4?,4r~ - - ~~~~~~~~~33. 461 1, 97 7 969 12 2,243J 3237 5 3,291 - - 2'.654~~~~~~~~~~~~1 1,4 3 1la87 -10 5 3.0 4t-A - - ~~~~~~~ ~~~31.03 3 70 5 41)1 4 I,6 2 36 i 3,; -3 36 ,552 8482 7 10 4 '49 4 1 -,I 507,72, 4 45,508 1 ,7 48 508a 4 1, 0, 6 6 - 6 59,~ - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ 3 3521 6 1 .1 73 3 41 7 1 S u7 45,,347- A ~~~~~~~~APPENDIX V Criub s taco Fierrin73 ye- Carp Catfish (note 53 (note a) 9'' rout IUa~ 187 - - - 34 1,46' 188d - - 3 25 3 , 483 1889 0 - 36 2 . 3, 36 7 1890 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ - 992,1 1 897 - - 69 4 3, 7 94 1599 - - - 1,51~~~~~~~~~li5 3,625 140 - - - 6 ,7 51 5,I'l92 1903 - 5, 310 2 , 0 3 19 13 6 - - 6,78 2,33n6 1941 4 9 - - 9.36 1,6 7 6 1 9 15 7 C2 .- 7,2I 1,373 1 916 - - - 5,17 2,176 1I1 - I - 7,1, I 1.96a] 191 it 3 -.34 2 ,3 26 1919~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ - 4 - .48 3, 463 1s2 9 - 1 6 ,4 84 2,1 1921 2 4,809 'lilt 192 1- 7 3 ,76 217 123 4 2 .3 1 2901 1925 - 6,216 2,565 195 6 - - 9,002 2,655 1926 7 9 ,149 3 ,2860 1977 3 - 156 3.051 1926 3 - - 9496 2,962 1929 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ 1 , 7288 2, 8 04 1 9 30 1 II 9 193 7246 1 9 31 2 - 4 756 299 1 93 2 7 -v - ,43,6 1 9 33 7 - 3 7,3 2 ,4 93 1 9 34 3 , 3 11,53 3 ,3 i4 1 9 35 - - 3,5 8 3.8 I193 6 3 4 - 16.1 ,j 1938 - - - 10,~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~6 3,36 7 1939 --1.07 2,744 194 42 - - 5:2 1 4, 4 4 1944 434 i3,3,74 1'u3,r 1 944 - 6 39 34,.2? I 3 , '41 1945 ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ - 25 14.0 (45' 3, 369 1~4 - 4 356 13 ,I1,2 3 ,4 44 1947 - - 249 1I80 2.96.' 1 948 9 I I G 1 4 ,7 2, 954 1949 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ - -63 13, ,42,6 391 - - 2 5 44 2.914 1952 - - ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~93 12,023 95 3 - -69 10 ,4 39 241 3 1854~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -32 13.2 .' 1-CS~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ - -14 371421133 hiSS - 2~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~16 IG,478 ,1 1957 - - 266 11,355 1,393 3959 I- 3,64 11,52 86 1 9 60 I- - 328 10. 1238 1961 - - ~~~~~~ ~~~1,196 11,457 323 196 I I I .1 9 ,906( 2' 19 63 .8 31 196 3 9 6,9 4 o I1965 - 2.1i3 3 4,72 1 4 1 986 - I - 1,57 ,02 1987 - 1'o 3 Sa 1968 - 40 Oe 390 I - 1,19 135 I, 34:3 - - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~1,830 1,16136 1 9 72 - - 139 88023 1 9 7 4 - .20 73 ' I See footnotes on p. 71. -4 By SPECIFS, AND TOTAL CANADIIAN CATCP. VAPIOUS la'S APPENDIX V (Tho-,Svds ~-f Pounds'~ To t 31 Yel10W Pike rlt~ Stt Ss'e I Alewife Suckers zellcw-Perch 8~11� )eI 3r t. ed-States canac". .,nd r'a.,da - - - - - 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.837 392 4,1-4 - - - - - 4. 6.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a826 1,642 10,4c.. - - 3 ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 28 -20 7 7,8B4 2. 1, 3 10,c61 - - - ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~- 9' 6,116 1,443 8.599 - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~2 -1,465 7,979 2.215 13.,2, 4 - - - - ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~102 6,0-,s 2.382 11.41G -- 4 13 46 6,i39 3.005 1.34G - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 64 2 62 59 13,986 .1413 16,394 -283 4 JJ7 42 9'(601 2,ts"6 1. - - - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~7 62 7 27 10.717 2 .14 $ 12.818 - - - 3~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~7 63 590 12,475 5.14 15 !698 - - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~17 71 492 9.543 8.217 17.7'66 - - - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~3 30 647 8.350 5.631' 13,llb1 - - 3~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~47 3 25 1 02 9.91 9.693 19,6964 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ - 3 45 A 492 1 1 ,5,53 7, 734 19.287 - - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 1 7 3896 10, 52 7 4,2Z96 1 4 , 23 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ I - 114 318 9.,066 3,556 1 2.622 - ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ I - 0 22 30 5 7, 52 5 2.,460 9 '9,".- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~26 0 37 28 36 6.,5 71 2,161I1 9 , 1 2 -- 6 .12 281 7.58S 4.I98~8 1 2.17 3 - - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~- 49 23 421 9,510 3.716 1-.726 - - ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~- 2 3 9 6i30 1 -,5 55 3,'65 3 6, 19 - - ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~- 5 25 776 13,715 4.30' 18.026 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ - 1 24 706 15,6 30 5 .15 2 20 ,.389 - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~- 12 2 - 6 26 1 3,4z O .,400 18.620 - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~226 7 2? 2 4 2 1( ,56', 4 . 6 7 2I. 42 1 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -4 3 0 2 2 58 1 4 .86 7 4.,761 1 9.6-.7 - - ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~16t 4 25 32 11.258 3,169 14,42-7 - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ -21 '4 - 1 43 10a, 3 69 2.,460i 1 2.9957 - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~20 4 6 2 7 4 3 30,6 31 3.108t I 3 91 - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ - 16 3 29~ 29 17. 20 3,988 231(1.1 - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ 2 27 1 1 9 48 1 7,87 2 3, 978~ 1, 4-, - - 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~91 8 - 97 16.008 4.900 20,9083 - ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 4 47 9 -4p 16, 01 2 4 . 909 20,92-1 4 -289 - 45 3R 1 4,856 4.057 18,913 - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ - 19 8 36 32 16. 8 3 3.3 07 20,C9u - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - 39 3 6 19 20.,672 ,1 3 19 23.99 I - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ - 38 6 1124 22.31 11 3.436 5.54 7 - 148 6 3 1 4 19.2 3b33 '22,991 -20 3 8 3 3 J9 18.,3-i2 3,372.1 - - 3~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~66 4 37- 3 a 19. 2 4 3 .7-61 2 3 .0)( -276 i2 29 3 2 1 8. 25 1. 61 2 2 2.91? - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ - 28 4 38a 2 1 i~ 11.4 8 3. 9d -I 23717 - ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ - 1 -25 3 9 i 4.918' 2.6a30 17 ,81 7 - - '4~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~3 5 36 27 i9,221 3,371 ~ 22.92 - ~~~~ ~ ~~64 -26 2-2 1.1,7 30 3.1 8 2i, 91 ' 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ -00 2 3 4 2 7 12.984 .69 1 5. 39 3 ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 27 3 22 3 0 1 4.0 39 5 45 90 1 3? 16F 594tS 3 .42 7 I$, 21 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ -2 - 36 3 3 13.60 s o 16 -i - 9~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~4 - 139 1.s 2 90 1,7 34 - ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~57 I 2~ 34 3.8 9410 16,121 1184 - 26 3 1 1 9 33.99 ,0 1 1-i3 l 3t - 48f 2 - 41 1 3 ,93 .2716 -6 332 - 4 3 I 52 1 3.19 4 2,7 6 tic,1 - 50 1 1 76 14 ,9956 3'.110 1-,,.06 *4 7 -68 2 1 31 a I33.7 71 z 2 .92a 116.999 3.1340 -47 9 1 42 1 4.734 9 2. 3 94 1 7, 1 3 995 - 4S 2 1 22 1 2,60? 2 1 4.37 97 4 a I,493 - 93 2 1 2,, 1 2,129 2.96,4#6 19,11 2.u20 - 4 ,1 2 1.16 42 2.682 12. 24 -4.4 - 3 4 3 24 3 8 , 748 1,.1 0 lI~ 3,69 - 27 9 1 27, 8.25., 1,C46 10,IU4 1 .496 - 39 2 3 41 7.99 52-A 8 I 0.461 1 26 - 4 2 1 4 7 6,97 3 1,385 9 : .06 7 6 64 4 -32 - ,239 .91 8,9 1.576 -86 --39 S.004 13.32 8.341 ..23J 56 --66 6, 18 2 3. 367 9,9 4 4 1.234 -62 --90 4.471 3,6568.7 -.112 -68 2 - 3 5.-4 26 3 ,16 1 8 ,997 2.069 - 349 9 - 3 5.9524 3,i 9.36 ,368 - 1 Ito11 4, 73s 3.7 69 a 8.90 4 83 APPENDIX V TABLE 7--U.S. GR Mi, Year New York Penslvan ia Ohio (no 1935 1,475 3,271 25.191 3' 1936 1,290 3,899 31,083 2: 1937 2,451 3,007 21,087 2; 1938 2,377 2,674 22,04C 2: 1939 2,595 2,762 23,512 2; 1940 1,970 2,295 18,996 2 1941 1,100 1,794 18,642 2i 1942 897 1,901 20,338 2f 1943 1,402 2,975 21,872 2' 1944 2,023 2,685 23,371 2: 1945 2,281 3,514 22,172 2: 1946 2,640 3,665 21, 74 27 1947 1,045 1,357 16,o89 2' 1948 1,3N9 2,534 21,796 3( 1949 2,305 4,436 26,682 2' 1950 574 2.236 20,225 2: 1951 900 736 18,700 2' 1952 1,265 2,112 21,247 2' 1953 891 1,903 22,949 2' 1954 1,214 2,232 23,435 2 1955 2,079 3,036 20,388 2! 1956 1,347 2,135 26,085 29 1957 911 i,778 25,964 2; 1958 653 1,010 19,419 2' 1959 500 1,071 19,518 2: 1950 589 1,015 18,011 2' 1961 897 1,206 15,810 2' 1962 680 2,150 15,225 2: 1963 502 1,412 14,223 2( 1964 446 817 11,230 1 1965 442 514 11,528 1! 1966 457 573 10,516 2 1967 538 478 9,831 2! 1968 604 481 10,400 2: 1969 561 497 9,541 2: 1970 534 505 8,420 2: ;971 487 377 8,1 1 I 1 1972 441 301 7,094 1( 1973 536 277 7,397 1' 1974 657 471 8,648 1' 1975 598 312 7,305 1; See footnotes on p. 71. APPENDIX V ATCH BY STATES, 1935-1975 of Pounds) rind iana (note b) Illinois Wisconsin Minnesota Total 435 1,300 16,330 8,390 87,011 544 1,369 17,740 5,676 90,570 781 1,462 17,757 (,047 81,001 763 1,156 15,348 6,261 79,299 605 1,259 16,082 7,007 82,720 524 1,943 17,006 7,811 76,588 286 1,555 18,719 6,202 76,429 139 1,777 17,093 5,140 73,563 120 1,909 17,028 5,659 76,667 49 1,657 16,675 5,595 74,167 54 1,621 19,044 4,768 77,413 33 1,505 19,636 3,781 77,192 16 1,832 18,615 3,162 68,26i 24 1,620 20,372 4,177 81,968 30 1,497 18,606 4,395 83,483 34 1,576 18,400 2,.708 68,906 90 1,050 19,731. 2,497 68,623 21 1,233 21,613 2,940 79,663 21 1,323 20,528 2,897 75,525 21 1,668 20,854 3,092 79,748 13 1,521 20,196 2,516 75,207 8 1,567 20,444 2,726 78,948 7 1,160 18,480 3,262 74,041 6 801 18,250 3,270 68,897 1 245 16,833 2,973 63,464 16 324 18,394 2,565 65,936 14 340 21,925 2,334 67,140 6 289 19,075 2,303 61,850 6 285 16,916 2,153 55,823 11 645 18,570 2,071 53,559 7 180 20,124 1,613 54,156 87 302 32,822 1,685 67,726 874 169 38,991 1,854 81,956 202 482 29,471 1,731 67,324 204 747 32,261 , 1,210 66,969 335 405 37,715 1,307 70,390 785 656 34,808 2,008 62,824 428 824 32,158 1,131 58,428 321 606 39,732 1,908 66,657 213 1,090 48,690 1,880 76,990 198 240 38,781 1,214 60,657 65~~~~~~~~~~ 8 � $-"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPELNDIX V TABLE 8--U. S. AND CANADIAN LA (Thousan Total Great Lakes Lake Ontario Species U.S. Canada Total i'.S. Canada Total Alewives 35,216 2 35,21; - Bowfin 2 50 52 - 3 3 Buffalofish 67 67 - - Bullhead 197 469 666 50 3 349 399 Buarbot 372 33 405 - - - Carp 6,732 533 7,2~5 2 414 416 Catfish 560 239 799 1 29 30 Chubs 2,444 1,249 3,693 - Crappie 89 - 39 3 - 3 Eels 30 370 400 30 370 400 Gizzard Shad 1 37 38 8 8 GoldfJ 56 - 56 - Lake 513 2,232 2,745 -27 27 Lake 1.- 456 194 650 - 2 2 Minnows 12 - 1?2 - - Pike or Pickerel 20 60 80 - 17 17 Quillback 150 - 150 - - Rock Bass 15 116 131 15 102 117 Salmon Coho 1 Q- 1 - - Sauqer - - Sheepshead 873 406 1,279 8 8 Smelt 2,573 17,333 19,996 19 104 123 Sturgeon - 14 14 - 1 1 Suckers 592 441 1,033 2 9 11 Sunfish 14 416 430 14 799 313 White Bass 1,699 2,580 4,279 - 12 12 Whitefish Common 4,517 1,203 5,720 - 5 5 Menominee 252 90 '42 - 3 3 White Perch 35 351 416 35 . 1 416 Yellow Perch 3,036 9,41) 12,455 61 599 660 Yellow Pike 133 40C 541 1 5 6 Unclassified for Animal Food - 2,154 2,154 - 30 30 Tota' 60,657 40,429 101,0d6 233 2,777 3 010 See footnotes on p. 71. Fe r ~~~~~~~~~~ ��~~~~ AFPPFLNDIX V :IES AND LAKE--1975 Lake MichiQan Erie Lake Huron (note c) Lake Superior a Total U.S. Canada Total U.S. U.S. Canada Total 2 2 - - - 35,216 - - 7 47 2 - 2 - 67 - - - 9 153 39 1 40 74 - - 1 - 2 2 274 97 31 128 4 3,285 629 55 684 2,880 - - 0 434 283 50 333 2 - - - - - 794 794 924 1,520 455 1,975 86 - 86 - - 9 i9 1 10 '1 - - - 56 - (a) 13 43 3 510 2,162 ?2.672 12 - 10 10 37 419 182 601 12 - - - 3 13 - 2 5 2C - 5 5 133 17 - 17 - - 2 12 - 2 2 - - 1 1,185 16 67 83 3 - - - I 16,934 - 5 5 1,173 1,366 3Cs 1,671 - - 13 13 - - - - 7 114 111 183 294 341 51 222 273 117 . . . 3 4,255 - 5 5 7 1 405 902 1,307 3,354 757 296 1,C53 - - 50 50 239 13 3 7 50 � 10,125 259 542 8a1 794 - 65 65 I 252 - 277 277 5 - 1 1 * 1,816 - 298 298 - - 10 10 39,033 1,858 3,334 5,192 45,347 4,735 3,769 8,504 87 r � iS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VI NUMBER OF LAKE TROUT AND PACIFIC SALMON REARED IN GREAT LAKES HATCHERIES Lake Pacific salmon Year trout Coho Chinook Total ---------------- (thousands) ----------------- 1958 987 - 987 1959 668 - 663 1960 1,050 - 1,050 1961 1,260 - 1,260 1962 1,853 1,853 1963 2,311 2,311 1964 2,631 2,- - 631 1965 3,221 3,221 1966 4,996 852 - 5,848 1967 5,714 2,199 835 8,748 1968 5,252 2,146 1,011 8,409 1969 4,880 5;078 1,093 11,051 1970 5,124 5;727 2,988 13,839 1971 4,902 4,994 4,010 13,906 1972 5,628 3,440 3,-o6 12,854 1973 6,046 3,676 5,E03 15,525 1974 6,278 5,699 6,;81 18,858 1975 7,132 5,033 7,073 19,238 Total 69,.33 38,844 33.480 142,257 Note: The number and quantity of other hatchery-reared fish planted in the Great Lakes were not readily available. 89 IxPPiCNDr.X VII APPE~NDIX V-TI GREAT LANES FISHERY COMMISSION SEA LAMPREY CONTROL Pi-OGRAM Concern over the decline of Fish stocks, esoeciallv lake trout, attributed to the invasion of the sea lamorey was the main impetus to the 1955 Convention on Sireat Lakec Fisheries between the United States and Canada. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was establislie' and made responsible for formulating and implementing a orocjram toeaicate Dr :'inimize sea lampreyOpltos ro carry out the program, GLFC contracted with the Fish and ivildlife Service (FWS) in the United Stateci and with Fisheries and Environment, Canaoa's Fisheries and Marine Service in Canada. Both agencies had par ticipated 'n earlier control efforts initiated in 19483. Triese efforts. involving F~jS, the States, and Canadian agencies, Had yielded much oasic 1itforaation but were somewhat uncoordinated and exper!-i :,e n talI. Since the lamprey by 1955 naa spread and becorie e-stab- lisned throughout the lakes, the task GLr6C faced in trying to control it was a formidable one. The Doint of attacK h-q been trihutarv streams. Lampreys ascend streams to soawn and thus concentrate in then., either as adults oi-. s-)awning runis or as larvae (im-.mature lampreys) burrowed in the stream )Qds. One of the first steos in the oroqram involved a sarvey of all streams (a total of 5,747) tributary to the Great Lakes to idient ify those that )rod iced lampreys. The survey, identi- fied 400 as la-iorey--,roducirq' of W~iich 277 wera in the United Sta tes. Initially, mec".anical or electromechanical bDarriers were installed in lamprey-producincl streams to orevent iatur!e la.--1 preys from reaching their spawning areas. Tite bjarrier pro- qrara was starte-i in ths late 1l340s and, at its peak in !959, included about 135 i-arriers in the United States anu Canada. In tbe lata lfl0s, after a 7-year research e'ffort by ?WS, a control -)reakthrouqh wlas achieved--the jevel~oinent of chem-,ical toxicants (lainpricicies) . Since 1l-35 6LFC- has usea lamorici-aes as t:he oriaiary ricthoo of control. Clec- trical barriers nave scen continued in oceratior'. at selectedi sites, but anily as a m--eans [or !neasurincj cont-ro- -2[Eective- niess (lam1prey abundance and b)ioloqical characteristics). 90 : �PPC vDI i Va. JFE;DIK VII Lamnorev-oroducing streams are treated wit- lamoriciues by two FWS Sea Lamprey Stations, located at Ludinqton and Harauette, Michigan, and by a Canadian sea lamnrey control unit located at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Each of the Great Lakes, except Lake Erie, has received at least one "round" of treatment--that is, treatment of all known lamprey-producing streams tributary to the lake. ''he fir t round was accooplished jradually, by lake, a3 shown belosw: Treat.Tent Lake Streams Started Conpolteto Superior 125 l 58 1 61 M ic.aigan liJ 1960 19G6 Hurrn 108 a/1960 1970 Ontario 44 1971 1372 a/Control was started in 1U60. it was discontinued in 196G to 1965 because of insufficient funds and re:s5uned in 1966. In Lake Erie, the only lake not treatd, lamrrevs are not abundant. However, because the survey of streams zhowed that 12 streams tributary cn ra-i Erie were ootentiallv suitable for production of lamoreys, GLFC believes controls may have to be imolemented. Through fiscal year 1975, GLFC expenditures for lam- prey control were about $32 zillion. The United States ana Canada share the cost on a 69 to 31 ratio, based on average annual commercial catches of lake trout before the lamore. invasion. Their shares of expenditures through fiscal year 1975 were as follows: United States $21,977,121 Canada 9,873,77q Total $31,850,900 The total annual United Stiates-Canada cost increasea from $1.3 million in 1956 to $3.1 million in 1975. The program has achieved dramatic results. Lamprey populations have been reduced an estimated 85 to 90 percent. In Lake Superior, where the orogram has been in operation longest and where its effectiveness has been most carefully evaluated, lamprey abundance has been reduced by about 90 percent. The number of lainorey 91 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII declined sharply in Lake Superior in 1962--the � .ar after the first comolete round of stream treatments . that lake. The decreases was accompanied by a marked dec ine in the incidence of sea iamprey wounds on lake trout and, later, by an improved survival of lake trout to older age and larger size. The same phenomenon occurred in the whitefish of Lake Michigan. The reduction in the lamprey population has, in turn, enabled large-scale plantings of lake trout, salmon, and anadrotnous trout (e.g., steelheads) (see p. 28)--species that are natural prey of the lamnprey. The lamorey control program has been cost beneficial. FWS estimated that for 1970 in the Uoper Lakes (Huron, Michigan, and Superior) the ratio of benefits to costs ranged from 5:1 to 8:1. In the opinion of a GLFC official, the ratio presently is much higher--he estimated 30:1-- because of further aevelopment of the sport fishery since 1970. APPROVAL OF LAMPRICIDES FOR E'NVIRONMENTAL SAFETY GLFC oelieves further research is needed in two asoects, of the program, namely, research to obtain approval ot the lampricides from the environmental standooint and research to aevelop alternative control methcds. In 1971, GLFC's lamprey control program was broadened to include comprehensive studies of the immediate and long- term effects of lampricides on the environment. The studies were intended ;-o demonstrate, in accoruance with the require- ments of Federal environmental laws, that the chemicals used ire not hazardous to humans, the aquatic ecosystem, fish, and wildlife. Research has indicated that the environ- mental effects are very small, and researchers are confident that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval will be forthcoming. Tne primary lampricides had been approved at 9nviron- mentally safe sometime prior to 1970 by the Department of Agriculture, which at the timne administered the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Subsequently, however, Agriculture advised GLFC that the approvals would be canceled on December 31, 170. We were advised that the action resulted'from new legislation calling for review 92 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII and re-registration (approval) of the chemicals being used-. Review and aporoval actions were to be carried out by PA.. In early 1971, 2PA granted an extension of the regis- tration so that the research necessary to support re- registration might go forward. The research has been conducted for GLFC by tone FWS 'istn Control Laboratory, LaCrosse, Wisconsin, in accordance with a 5-year research plan developed in early 1971. An FWS official informed us that the research had been exopected to be conoleted in 1976, but that it night continue through 1977--he could not esti.iate a completion date. The FWS official told us the effort to obtain EPn approval of the lampricides has been prolonged by --changes in EPA requirements; --the large volune of technical data involved; --EPA's workload, which hinder? prompt EPA review of data submitted. According to the director of the F;;S laboratory in- volved, research results to date have been very favora)le, and lie was confident EPA approval would be obtained. The matter is of critical importance to the sea lamprey control prograln. If the lampricides now used as the primary control method are not approved by EPA, alternative methods will have to be developed and adopted--a time-consuming process, during which the sea lamprey may regain its for:er abundance and seriously reduce stocks of valued species of fisn. RESEAhCH TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS GLFC recognizes the need for continuing research to develop a fully integrated control program to further reduce sea lamprey abundance in the Great Lakes. The present con- trol program has substantially reduced sea lamprey popula- tions but has not entirely eliminated them. The orogram, using present methods, may have to be continued indefinitely and at increasing cost. While the lamorev population has been substantially reduced, it remains a stubborn problem. In some localities, lampreys have on occasion increased from ea lier low .93 APPENDIX VII APPENDIX VII populations achieved by control efforts. For examrle, the 1976 spring collection of adult lampreys from five Canadian barriers on streams tributary to Lake Huron increased 82 Percent over the number collected for a similiar period in 1975. According to a GLFC official, more frequent chemi- cal treatments will be needed, and the price of chemicals has risen sharply. Research to develop alternative cortrol methods is being conducted for GLFC by the FWS Great Lakes Fishery Laboratorv at its Hamirolod Bay (Michigan) Bioloqical Station. 've were advised by an FWS o-ficial tnat sucn research accounts for about 95 percent of the station's effort. Station costs in fiscal year 1975 totaied about $175,000. The laooratory director believed that funding was adequdte, but that there will oe a continuing need for the research. While the suture direction of the control effort is still uncertain, GLFC expects that a fully integrated control ?rorain will eventually include supplemnentary or alternativ= methods, such as the construction of oermanent oarriers c., selected streams and the use of biolocical controls. 91 NPPE~iODx VillAPP~T< /1 - U.&. DEPAPTMrENT OF COMMERCE Nati onal Oceanic nid Atmuspher-c Admonis, rat.irn IFt,dvraii Bui ljio' Ow JuLIIy 1 2 1977 MIr. .1. I'. G1lik L'. S. Gen~terail Accounting tiffic., WSC building I i-kitv,, �,ar.,land 0, .',er Jim iDoring tit- recent visit ~'-sr ;,)din Iiii I ..r , Mich rd -i~- 'ohn C:arr, .iid y~ourse'i f wt- discii-~d it l "~t th. I ;r,. .i.: L-iii fishing, indti-ttrv alid th lu I It .nt ii . 0.lii I' kes tf tipc , i Ln i Ii jin t f i s it(r ies in Hit i I iiki' . urt orll ilisit I t . 1rot t ImIt t!t ". , IS , as iii I i s 'thwr -t,-ril a.,,vil ; s. -;hilil fiti i IIi the- iCrt-t Likke . I -IIt hop.. lif il tl~t til, Ifoi Iv Ii. , i i Wi ItI1, 11, Ip u 1iii c-urrent c-Lnjdit ion and futitr( po.tonti~il of i-om~i.ricial I I"I, rie III Liii (;r-it Lake.s. is in i!-tp~rt tnt ionimern t., t.Le N~.t ililUJI 'I.iril Ht Al r-s i-s Service. A~ Dirmtctor ,I [hNL it,i- k, *~i I hv ir~llii bi I i tv Lu providic tite s~'.serice . 4 of i It. thte 4 oic-.r1 id Ii i ii. indust~rv of tiut G.reat I.ai,-e is ti tit(. , ui.tat ir uei of t it,. At Ilin t i .. ~I d . A\n I mportlist d i- , m It in , howcvvrI, - L ii. I t tI ,t-q, i "t Federal manuigtmint respon iihilI it V iln tlo. Ir. It Ilikes-. I! .i .4 It, vight states which bordi.r till lak."- 'iavciiaiii. r, jur i -J it i' , i Lii.r h .i,,ishirv resilurces withiii it,, biund.iries. i II, aiii)i I i it o n Nl'IFS resou~rL'es LOW~ilrd aissi-staiio eto the. indtict v ini tille likes i t h rv Io ro depenmiden1t on t IIe poI i livs i, thei s t ats - I-i r, ..tard t i t ii, lr It, of 111mri r- c~il f isiutrivs. rite establ islument of tw NXF,,~i (Ir,,itLaF i..u', iii io iip I ic ii'I,-ori on the basis of aI deunont rated i i'd Iv thel tlldustirv imul tim, aissiiiri- o~f the ',aturutl Resouir,,s Iirectir, if ouch o the- fCria Llikes tit, that cormmercial fishueril.-, . ii-;I a unt indjn, role in their istirv , :i-t.. ment pluns. 1the state dir trs 1s foires.-.o ii v~ -i. in. ti, mavnagtikenrit oif till conmuimrciiui f isi-rv wiLth .i r, du, t ion in tix- nmkwi~i r , fishin, t uni ts, -);rt itulaiiv part-t jime fisin opcrut I is wii a: lOr-- responding inirvaettcd ,tuthility iii titi oiiliic lL~t. Ow t ie uiit r_ 9 5 APPENDIX VIII APPENDIX VIII Mr. J. P. Click July 12, 1977 In order to properly allocate NEFS resources to the Great Lakes, v. are continually assessing the neecs of the industry and its future u ler new management policies and environcontal al'erations. The followin comments, by specific issues, pertaining to the Great Lakes commercial fis eries, are our current assessments of the industry and it, future: Landings - Based on the best available studies the total landings (weight) will probably increase in the next five to ten years. Increases will occur primarily in species now considered underutilized such as carp, suckers, freshwater drum, smelt, alewives, and hirbot. Increases are also expected to occur in landings of perch, lake trou.t and round whitefish because of better management of the stocks, new methods of harvest. and improved natural reproduction. Value of landings - The docksi,- value should also continue to increast with higher prices for each species commensurate with increased landings. Number of producers - The total number of fishermen will decline or stabilize with the implementation of variou.: types of limited entry programs b5 the states which are designed primarily to phase out most casual fishing operi- tions. Changes in harvesting methods will require loss manpower in the production sector. Employment in the processing and marketing sector may increase with the expected development of processed products from under- utilized species, and the rising trold toward custom retail fish markets. Need for stock asserssment - In order to manage tir optimum yield, an increase in b, th the eflort and quality of stock assessment must occur. Current assessment efforts by the states, universities, ad the Fish and Wildiffe Service are not adequate to establish reliable estimates of harvestable surpluses for m-st species. The absence of suf;icient informati, n in this area is a primary cause of conflict between the users a.nd the manaiement agencies. The inability of state management agencies to specify the harvestable surplus has hindered the developme-t of a fishery for many species. Sport-cmnlercial conflicts - The issues in this con'lict are more emotional than real. Actually, only three mijor species (lake trout, perch, and wallevys) are actively sought after by bathL rl o,s. In 1976, lake trout and walleyes accounted for only three percent of tie total value of the U. S. Creat Lakes production. Yellow perch land;-.gs were 23 percent of the total. Conflicts over perch htve been mi,,imizes by closing comr.ercial fis.- ing in the prime sport fishing areas. Conflicts over large incidental catches of sport species are being resolvcd by changing the type of gear used. The :.ajor conflict between competing users occurs over the issue of deter- minir.g harvestable surplus. lha arguments usually have the commercial fishermen p-ishing for the high estimate and the management agencies and the sports fishermen for the low estimate. Esrimates of harvestable 1.-I APPENDIX VIII APPENDIX Viff r.J. P. Click July 12. 1977 surpluses, when made, usually Ihave a rangv of several hundred percent. l improved data base on population dynamics would reduce signifiCanltly this conflict, with the added benefits of better protection of the s;tocks as well as the improvement of the economic stability of the inaastry. Contaminants - The problem of chemical contaminants in Great Lakes fish has r,2ceived muchL pub) icity in the news media, and has usually been )vetr- stated. The problem is real enough without exaggeration. The present primary effect on the commercial f islierv of contaminants exceeoding EllA tolerance loels is the PCB le,,el in Lake Michigan lake trout . The PCEI level in th ne fish exceed the current FDA action level of ~) ppm by the. time they reach 12 to 15 inches. If these. 'ish did [lot exceeud the guidc- line * a small assessiment fisilerx' would probably be il lovwed a'), thew v,1lue to the commercial fishf ry wouldl be about 20C-300 thousand doll i.rs. High PCB levels in carp in southern C-.en Bay have curtailed this I isvryr with a 'oss of 50 to 7$t'au-4o~as !'ethaps. the greatas: .s. r ,,ntte due toi contami-lants is to the State ~'I. :iigan. If - - 2 salmon eggs takein bv the state during the Ial s~:aw. i'n- r sold for human consamptloio, the state, could rc ai:, -`I nil IIon dol I ats. The expected reduct ion from i ppm. to ppr! ic t ion I,- for PLB in f ish by FDA will have, oile I, s i ght ~: -h-i .-oimmerc i-, Itries because few fish now are in the range , 2 -. - ~ice lilt -'~ t ]l'vels of Nl'Cs i- it] the snort spec i'.~. silmon qnd iake ic ,tep',hlgcleffect- en the publi, of lowering the~ acc. -, IL.! 1:cn'-i recic --rt fishaing oad perhaps requtire t~he state'S to reviev : ur-,Lnt stoc,: r -cices and r~cnie their plans for.,the eon- struc~t of new halt1erv-'. Requjr~ell actions to -nihance commercial fisheries include: 1. Better coordinatiten of -urrent stock assessment act ivit ies, toward a clearly defined goal )f determining the harv'estable surplus. of those specie,; in greatest demand by the users. 2. Continued research efforts by (.reat cik.: ui yers it- ic v xpee ii I'; those with Sea Grant funds, in the areas of: creation of praolucts and development of markets for the underutilized speci-s~ improvead techniques for measuring size-of fish populations; innovative use of mat; matical models to estimate optimum sustainable vields of fish a;t. ks; development and adaptation of more economically effi- cirnt. and selective maethods of harvest. 3. ;Aorc, concentrated efforts by the water pollution c~ontrol agencies (state and federal) to locatt and control sources of contaminants. 4. l'.crease the intensity and improve coordination of chemical analysis for contaminants in fish o better define the areas, specios, and size of fish which will meet FDA guidelines for 1,uman consuri.ption, 97 APPENDIX VIII APPENDIX VIII Mr. J. P. Click .1'ily 12, 1977 5. A more meaningful and objective role for the coimnerrial industry in management decisions. In summary, I believe there is a bright future for the commercial fishingl industry in the Great Lakes. The renewed determination of the states to scientifically manage the Great Lakes fishery resource will enhalce the economic viabilit5 of the industry, as well as provide the greatest benefit to the citizens of the eight Great Lakes states. Lastly, it is my view that a concerted effort must be undertaken by the Federal and state govern- ments in order to achieve success. I believe that such an effort would be justly rewarding to the nation. Sincre lyv, Wi liiam G. t;ordou ::-iona I 'i rec t or 98