International Governance of Fisheries Ecosystems: 99–143 © 2008 American Fisheries Society

Chapter 4

Management of Commercial Fisheries for Lake Whitefish in the Laurentian Great Lakes of North America

Ma r k P. Eb e n e r †, Ro n a l d E. Ki n n u n e n , Philip J. Sc h n ee b e r g e r , Ll o y d C. Mo h r , Ja mes A. Ho y l e , a n d Pa u l Pee t e r s

Introduction its exploring the upper Great Lakes region praised the abundance and fine flavor of lake Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis whitefish. A Jesuit priest wrote that “where were an important food source to aboriginal the Outaouaks and Huron live, there are people of North America well before the ar- caught at all times of the year great numbers rival of European settlers (Kinietz 1965; of whitefish” and another explorer wrote that Cleland 1982). Archaeological records indi- lake whitefish was the best of all the Great cate that they began to exploit lake whitefish Lakes fish “weighing from four to sixteen populations of the Great Lakes somewhere pounds, and is of a superior quality in these during 3,000–1,000 B.C. (Cleland 1982; waters” (Kinietz 1965; Goodier 1989). Oth- Spangler and Peters 1995). By 800 A.D. er early explorers labeled lake whitefish as lake whitefish were a primary staple of ab- the “best fish in the world” saying that “one original people in the upper Great Lakes and could eat it for days and never grow tired of many of their villages were located adjacent it” (Kinietz 1965). When European settlers to to lake whitefish spawning grounds (Kinietz North America discovered the delicate flavor 1965; Cleland 1982). By the time European and white flesh of lake whitefish they began explorers entered the upper Great Lakes re- extensive fisheries for the species. gion in the early 1600s, aboriginal people had Lake whitefish were the primary- tar developed highly organized gill-net fisheries get of the first commercial fisheries in the that targeted lake whitefish and other species Great Lakes because they spawned in large in nearshore waters (Kinietz 1965; Cleland concentrations in shallow water near shore 1982; Goodier 1989). By the late 1700s ab- where they could be harvested with gill nets original people were selling and trading lake and seines by early settlers (Spangler and Pe- whitefish to European settlers in the three up- ters 1995; Brown et al. 1999). Commercial per Great Lakes (Cleland 1982; Spangler and fisheries for lake whitefish began in the late Peters 1995). 1700s and more large-scale fisheries began in European explorers and Catholic Jesu- the 1820s all along the shorelines, principally by The American Fur Company and later by †Corresponding author: [email protected] Hudson’s Bay Company and A. Booth Pack- 99 100 Ebener et al. ing Co. (Milner 1874; Nute 1926; Goodier aged 3.2 million kg from the 1880s to 1955 1989; Spangler and Peters 1995; Bogue and the greatest historical yield during this 2000). Cities such as Detroit, Chicago, New time came from Lake Huron, followed by York, and Cleveland were the primary mar- lakes Michigan, Superior, Erie, and Ontario kets for lake whitefish, which sold for $6 a (Fleischer 1992; Spangler and Peters 1995). barrel in 1830 (Coberly and Horrall 1982; By 1900 populations of lake whitefish had Goodier 1989; Brown et al. 1999). The fish- been reduced in near shore waters by ex- ery for lake whitefish intensified in the late panding fisheries (Lawrie and Rahrer 1972; 1800s and early 1900s as technology im- Wells and McLain 1973; Spangler and Pe- proved gear, fishing power, and processing of ters 1995) and degradation of tributary and the catch (Nute 1926; Van Oosten et al. 1946; near-shore habitat (Beeton 1965; Lawrie Lawrie and Rahrer 1972; Spangler and Peters and Rahrer 1972; Hartman 1973; Wells and 1995; Brown et al. 1999; Bogue 2000; Mohr McLain 1973; Christie 1973; Spangler and and Ebener 2005a). Peters 1995; Reckahn 1995). Some substan- Lake whitefish populations and the fish- tial yields were obtained during 1910–1955, ery declined during roughly an 80-year pe- but they were short-lived and usually caused riod from the 1880s to 1960. Peak yields by production of large-year classes (Lawler from lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan 1965; Reckahn 1995) or excessive fishing occurred just as records were beginning to (Van Oosten et al. 1946). Fisheries for lake be kept in the 1880s. The largest recorded trout Salvelinus namaycush and cisco Core- yield was about 11 million kg in 1879 and gonus artedi developed in the early to mid- very large yields of roughly 10 million kg oc- 1900s as lake whitefish populations and their curred prior to 1890 (Figure 1). Yield aver- fishery yields declined (Spangler and Peters

12,000 Ontario Erie 10,000 St. Clair s Huron am 8,000 Michigan ogr

il Superior k 6,000 of

ons 4,000 Milli 2,000

0 1867 1879 1891 1903 1915 1927 1939 1951 196319751987 1999 Year

Figure 1. Commercial fishery yields of lake whitefish from the Great Lakes during 1867–2004 (Baldwin et al. 2000). The yield records are incomplete or missing from 1867 through 1913. Commercial fishery yield information during 1867–2000 obtained from the Great Lakes Fish- ery Commission website at www.glfc.org. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 101 1995; Brown et al. 1999). The introduction one has taken an objective look at the basin- of marine fish to the Great Lakes added the wide fishery. Significant ecological change final insult to already stressed populations, brought about by recent invasive species has and lake whitefish collapsed in all the Great dramatically altered lake whitefish population Lakes during 1955–1970 (Fleischer 1992). dynamics, the fishery for them, and manage- The total fishery yield from the Great Lakes ment (Mohr and Nalepa 2005). Our objective was only 701,000 kg in 1959 (Figure 1), and is to describe the status of the commercial many commercial fishers believed lake white- fishery for lake whitefish in the Great lakes fish were extinct by this time. in relation to the fish’s population dynamics, Thus over roughly 180 years lake white- ecological change, market demands, and the fish went from being an abundant indigenous global economy, and document evolution of species to near extinction. Other indigenous management policies for regulating the fish- fish species also suffered the same fate as ery. lake whitefish during the same time period in the Great Lakes (Lawrie and Rahrer 1972; Past and Current Status of the Fishery Berst and Spangler 1973; Christie 1973; and Their Ecosystem Hartman 1973; Wells and McLain 1973; Le- gault et al. 1978; Bogue 2000). In response to Biological population status the degradation of fisheries and fish habitat in the Great Lakes, state, provincial, and fed- Lake whitefish are a coldwater species eral management agencies took aggressive indigenous to all of the Great Lakes and steps to rehabilitate the Great Lakes aquatic North America roughly north of latitude 45o. ecosystem by restricting commercial fisher- They are a member of the subfamily Core- ies, stocking the lakes with introduced Pa- goninae and the subgenera Coregonus (true cific salmon Oncorhynchus spp., controlling whitefish), which are characterized by their sea lampreys Petromyzon marinus, reducing subterminal mouth, low number of gill rak- inputs of man-made chemicals to the lakes, ers, and benthic feeding behavior on mac- and restoring degraded habitats (Legault et roinvertebrates (Lindsey 1981; Bernatchez al. 1978; Smith and Tibbles 1980; Keller and et al. 1991). Coregonus evolved in northern Smith 1990). These management actions in Europe and Asia and radiated to North Amer- combination with favorable environmental ica during the Pleistocene (Bailey and Smith conditions for growth and reproduction al- 1981; Bernatchez et al. 1991; Smith and Todd lowed lake whitefish populations to recover 1992) and colonized the Great Lakes after the and today they support the largest commer- Wisconsin glaciation (Lindsey et al. 1970; cial fishery on the Great Lakes (Ebener 1997; Bailey and Smith 1981; Stott et al. 2004). Mohr and Nalepa 2005). Lake whitefish are phenotypically highly Considerable research has been conduct- variable and ecologically diverse throughout ed on lake whitefish populations in the Great their distribution because of the different en- Lakes and at projecting appropriate harvest vironments they inhabit and food resources levels from the populations over the last 30 they consume, but in the Great Lakes they years (Patriarche 1976; Jacobsen and Taylor are less differentiated than in other areas of 1985; Rybicki and Schneeberger 1990; Eb- North America (Lindsey 1981; Ihssen et al. ener et al. 2005), yet few people have spe- 1981; Todd 1996; Bernatchez 2005). Bernat- cifically described the commercial fishery chez (2005) concluded that divergent natural for lake whitefish and its management (Eb- selection has driven lake whitefish diversity ener 1997; Mohr and Ebener 2005a) and no and that changes to the trophic environments 102 Ebener et al. of lake whitefish could result in a rapid evo- tie 1973). Woody debris including sawdust lutionary response over a few generations from lumbering caused the loss of some es- in their populations. Thus fisheries for lake tuary and river spawning populations of lake whitefish vary from one area to another whitefish in every Great Lake. Hydroelectric through time in response to how the species barriers, navigation locks, and dewatering of adapts to changes in its local environment. rapids dramatically reduced abundance of spawning concentrations of lake whitefish in Habitat large tributaries (Smith 1917; Kaups 1984; Duffy and Batterson 1987; Edsall and Gan- Lake whitefish occupy only a small por- non 1993; Manny et al. 1988). As of 2005 tion of the total area in each Great Lake in wa- lake whitefish spawned in only a few Great ters of 1–145 m, but they are most commonly Lakes tributaries (Carney 2006). found in water between 15 and 55 m that is Huge influxes of phosphorus and nitro- associated with the shoreline of the lakes or gen to all the Great Lakes, except Superior islands (Selgeby and Hoff 1996). In the cen- and the main basin of Lake Huron, during the tral basin of Lake Erie lake whitefish are con- middle portion of the 20th century increased fined to a thin layer of water that makes up primary production and altered plankton and less than 9% of the area and 7% of the vol- zooplankton composition and density (Colby ume where there are sufficient oxygen levels et al. 1972). These limnological changes in (Cook et al. 2005). Lake whitefish spawn turn influenced spatial distribution and growth from late October into December with peak of lake whitefish particularly in Lake Erie spawning during 1–20 November. Spawning (Hartman 1973; Kenyon 1978). The Great sites are typically near shore in less than 5 Lakes Quality Agreement in 1978 brought m of water over hard stony substrates (Free- about reductions in phosphorus concentra- berg et al. 1990) along the exposed windward tions and primary production in the four low- shorelines or reefs. They spawn over small er Great Lakes, but these changes have not to moderate-sized cobble substrates, but they been uniform among the lakes (Mills et al. have been observed to spawn on sand (Cobe- 2005; Madenjian et al. 2002; Dobiesz et al. rly and Horrall 1980; Goodyear et al. 1981). 2005). Few, if any, spawning grounds are located more than 2 km from a shoreline. In-lake Invasive species spawning areas are in good condition for the most part because human populations have The introduction of marine and freshwa- remained relatively low throughout the ar- ter fishes to the Great Lakes reduced abun- eas where most of the spawning habitats are dance of lake whitefish starting in the early located. Long-term cycles in water level and part of the 20th century. Sea lampreys, ale- temperature caused by the hydrological cycle wives Alosa pseudoharengus, and white and other climatic factors interact to control perch Morone americana invaded the Great long-term fluctuations in lake whitefish pro- Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean through the duction (Reckahn 1986). Erie and Welland canals around Niagara Habitat degradation in tributaries and Falls, while rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax their estuaries was an important cause of the entered through angler releases, but they all decline in lake whitefish populations from the may have had effects on lake whitefish popu- early 1800s through the 1960s (Smith 1917; lations (Smith 1972; Lawrie and Rahrer 1972; Smith 1972; Lawrie and Rahrer 1972; Hart- Christie 1973; Wells and McLain 1973; Berst man 1973; Wells and McLain 1973; Chris- and Spangler 1973). Sea lamprey had their Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 103 greatest effects on adult lake whitefish during as indigenous benthic macroinvertebrates the 1950s and 1960s, but federal government and especially the amphipod Diporeia spp. actions to reduce sea lampreys were success- (Pothoven et al. 2001; Pothoven 2005; Mills ful at increasing survival and abundance of et al. 2005; Nalepa et al. 2005). Researchers lake whitefish (Spangler 1970; Christie 1973; estimated a loss of 5,100 metric tons of Di- Jensen 1976; Spangler et al. 1980; Spangler poreia biomass in the 10–50 m depth zone of and Collins 1980; Reckahn 1995). Sea lam- Lake Ontario between 1994 and 1997 (Lazano prey populations are only one-tenth as abun- and Scharold 2005), and Diporeia abundance dant as prior to control, but they continue to has declined to zero at many sites within lakes attack and kill lake whitefish, particularly in Michigan, Huron, and Ontario. After the loss Lake Huron (Ebener 2006a). of Diporeia, its composition in the diet of Predation on larvae is the most likely ef- lake whitefish declined dramatically and lake fect of alewives, rainbow smelt, and white whitefish diets diversified as they began eat- perch on lake whitefish abundance. Rain- ing mainly dreissenid mussels; gastropods, bow smelt have not been directly implicated opossum shrimp Mysis relicta, ostracods, oli- in the decline of lake whitefish in the Great gochaetes, and zooplankton were also in the Lakes as they have in inland lakes, but they diet (Hoyle et al. 1999; Pothoven et al. 2001; were considered detrimental to the popula- Pothoven 2005; Hoyle 2005). Body condition tions (Loftus and Hulsman 1986; Evans and of lake whitefish declined substantially con- Loftus 1987; Reckahn 1995). Alewives have current with the loss of Diporeia (Hoyle et been blamed for the decline of a number of al. 1999; Pothoven et al. 2001; Mohr and Eb- indigenous species in the Great Lakes but ener 2005b). Essentially, the caloric content primarily after sea lampreys had already re- of food eaten by lake whitefish has declined duced abundance of adult fish (Smith 1972). since the loss of Diporeia and lake whitefish The influence of alewives on lake whitefish now forage over broader geographic areas, in abundance may be much less than previously deeper water, and more on pelagic organisms suggested in Lake Michigan because Bunnell than they did only 15 years earlier. et al. (2006) have suggested that recovery of lake whitefish may have been a spurious cor- Distribution and movement of stocks relation with the alewife reduction. Invasive dreissenid mussels have had the At least 56 stocks of lake whitefish are most profound recent effect on lake whitefish recognized for management purposes in the in the Great Lakes; particularly lakes Michi- Great Lakes (Ebener 1997). Distances of one gan, Huron, and Ontario. There has been little hundred kilometers or more separate some observable effect on lake whitefish in Lake stocks (Imhof et al. 1980; Casselman et al. Erie although dreissenid mussels are abun- 1981; Scheerer and Taylor 1985; Ebener and dant there, and mussel abundance in Lake Copes 1985), while distances of 5–20 km sep- Superior is too low to be detrimental to lake arate other stocks (Budd 1957; Clary 1962; whitefish. Zebra mussel Dreissena polymor- Dryer 1964; Casselman et al. 1981; Koziol pha and quagga mussel D. bugensis abun- 1982; Walker et al. 1993; Stott et al. 2004). dance increased quickly in water less than 75 Most lake whitefish stocks inhabit areas with- m in the four lower Great Lakes in the early in 50 km of the spawning site, but some stocks 1990s (Nalepa and Schloesser 1993; Mills et are very migratory; thus spatial distribution of al. 2005) and these increases were followed discrete stocks overlap during the nonspawn- almost immediately by significant declines ing season and the commercial fisheries har- in abundance of lake whitefish prey such vest multiple stocks in some instances (Budd 104 Ebener et al.

Figure 2. The Great Lakes including locations referenced in this chapter and lake whitefish management units.

1957; Dryer 1964; Cucin and Regier 1965; 2005 almost one-half of the spawning stock Ebener and Copes 1985; Scheerer and Taylor inhabited the main basin of Lake Michigan 1985; Ebener 1990; Walker et al. 1993). For south of the Door Peninsula (Chippewa Ot- example, a stock of lake whitefish in lower tawa Resource Authority, unpublished data). Whitefish Bay, Lake Superior, spawns in Ca- The largest concentration of Diporeia now nadian waters but spends considerable time remaining in Lake Michigan is found along during the nonspawning season in U.S. wa- the western portion of the main basin from the ters (Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, tip of the Door Peninsula to Milwaukee, Wis- unpublished data). consin (Figure 2)—where much of the spawn- Movement of some stocks has changed ing stock from M-01 is now found during the through time in response to changes in the food nonspawning season. Diporeia were common web brought about by dreissenid mussels and in Green Bay during the 1970s and 1980s, but declines in Diporeia. Geographic and bathy- are now absent from there (T. F. Nalepa, Great metric shifts in distribution of lake whitefish Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, occurred in eastern Lake Ontario (Owens et al. personal communication). 2005) and northern Green Bay (M-01) during the late 1990s. The lake whitefish spawning Sexual maturity stock in Lake Michigan management unit M- 01 was fairly sedentary and was seldom cap- There is considerable variability in rates tured outside Green Bay during 1978–1980 of sexual maturity among lake whitefish popu- (Ebener and Copes 1985), but during 2003– lations in the Great Lakes that is not size- or Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 105 age-dependent, but rather is inversely related Recovery of lake whitefish populations to growth potential of individual stocks (Tay- in the Great Lakes began with production of lor et al. 1992; Beauchamp et al. 2004). Lake year classes in the 1960s and since then an- whitefish begin to mature between 30 and 45 nual recruitment has been good and reason- cm total length (TL) and ages 2–8 years, and ably stable with exceptionally abundant year complete maturity is typically achieved be- classes being produced sporadically. Produc- tween 37 and 55 cm TL and ages 4–12 years tion of the 1972 and 1977–1978 year class- with males reaching maturity sooner than fe- es began the modern-day recovery of lake males (Taylor et al. 1992). On average, roughly whitefish populations in the Great Lakes (Eb- 60%, range 39–84%, of female lake whitefish ener and Copes 1985; Scheerer and Taylor from northern lakes Michigan and Huron and 1985; Casselman et al. 1996). The abundance eastern Lake Superior will spawn by the time of the 1982–2000 year classes, as estimated they reach 43 cm TL (17 in, which is the mini- with statistical catch-at-age analysis (Bence mum legal length limit of many commercial and Ebener 2002), was fairly constant but not fisheries). The age of maturity in lake white- consistent among the three upper Great Lakes fish occurs near the inflection of the growth (Figure 3). In Lake Ontario production of the curve, and implies a relationship between age 1987–1995 year classes was considerably and length at maturity, the growth coefficient, greater than previous year classes, but pro- and asymptotic length (Jensen 1985). Stocks duction declined to near zero for the 1998– of lake whitefish with large maximum growth 2002 year classes before increasing again in potential reach maturity at relatively large siz- 2003–2005 (Figure 3). This consistent and es, while stocks with smaller maximum growth high production of year classes in the Great potential reach maturity at a much smaller Lakes helped the commercial fishery achieve size; consequently age at maturity is inversely the large yields taken in the 1990s. related to prereproductive growth rates and the time to achieve asymptotic size is positively Growth dynamics correlated with age at maturity (Taylor et al. 1992; Beauchamp et al. 2004). Recovery of lake whitefish populations, in combination with changes in the lower food Recruitment web, has dramatically altered their growth dynamics. Density-dependent declines in Recruitment of lake whitefish to fishable growth and increasing age at maturity were sizes in the Great Lakes is primarily a func- occurring in lakes Superior, Huron, and tion of adult stock size and water temperature Michigan prior to arrival of dreissenid mus- mediated by other biotic and abiotic events sels and the subsequent declines in Diporeia (Lawler 1965; Christie and Regier 1971; (Taylor et al. 1987; Mohr and Ebener 2005b; Henderson et al. 1983; Taylor et al. 1987; Hoyle 2005; Ebener 2006b; Kratzer et al. Freeberg et al. 1990; Brown et al. 1993). For 2007; Wright and Ebener 2007). The loss of many, but not all stocks of lake whitefish, Diporeia in lakes Michigan, Huron, and On- cold winters that produce considerable ice tario further reduced growth and condition, cover to protect eggs from large wind events and delayed age at maturity of lake white- will result in abundant year classes of lake fish. Substantial declines in mean weight- whitefish, but only if spring water tempera- at-age and body condition of lake whitefish tures warm at a steady rate and zooplankton from lakes Ontario, Huron, and Michigan size and density are appropriate (Taylor et al. began in the early to mid 1990s shortly af- 1987; Freeberg et al. 1990). ter proliferation of dreissenid mussels and 106 Ebener et al. fish

Figure 3. Average abundance (millions of fish) of the 1982–2000 year classes of lake white- fish in selected areas of lakes Huron (H-01, H-02, H-04), Michigan (M-01 to M-06 and M-08), and Superior (S-04, S-05, S-07, S-08) estimated by statistical catch-at-age analysis, and indices of age-0 lake whitefish at two spawning shoals in the Kingston Basin of Lake Ontario during 1972–2005. Average recruitment at age-4 in lakes Huron and Superior and age-3 in Lake Michigan was weighted by the square kilometers of surface area in the management units (see Figure 2 for management unit locations). Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 107 declines in abundance of Diporeia (Hoyle et some stocks of lake whitefish are harvested. al. 1999; Pothoven et al. 2001; Hoyle 2005; Exploitation of lake whitefish in M-01 ranged Mohr and Ebener 2005b; Schneeberger et al. from 47 to 64% during 1979–1980 (Ebener 2005). Dreissenid mussels essentially exac- and Copes 1985), but was less than 10% erbated the normal density-dependent growth during 2004–2005 (Chippewa Ottawa Re- dynamics of lake whitefish and the loss of source Authority, unpublished data). During Diporeia is preventing full recovery of their 1978–1980, the State of Michigan licensed growth rates to levels observed earlier in the commercial fishery accounted for 90% of the 20th century (Kratzer et al. 2007; Wright and exploitation on the M-01 stock, whereas dur- Ebener 2007). Indirectly, the loss of Diporeia ing 2004–2005 the state of Wisconsin fishery may also affect larval lake whitefish survival accounted for over 50% of the exploitation. and growth because both are positively corre- Movement of lake whitefish out of the Kings- lated with lipid content of the eggs of females ton Basin in eastern Lake Ontario and into (Brown and Taylor 1992). deep water and into New York waters reduced exploitation on that stock because there is no Exploitation commercial fishery for lake whitefish in New York. Lake whitefish in the Great Lakes typi- cally respond to additional fishing pressure Fish health by growing faster, maturing at younger ages, increasing fecundity, and possibly surviving Little is known about the fish health of better at younger ages (Jensen 1981, 1985; lake whitefish because their populations are Taylor et al. 1987; Liu and Jensen 1993). self-sustaining and fishery agencies in the Heavily exploited stocks of lake whitefish Great Lakes have focused their efforts on typically have higher estimates of reproduc- understanding and minimizing diseases of tion per individual than lightly or unexploited hatchery-reared trout and salmon. One of stocks. Lake whitefish populations have sus- the authors (JAH) has documented a die-off tained themselves under substantial exploi- of juvenile lake whitefish less than 350 mm tation in the Great Lakes primarily because TL in eastern Lake Ontario from an unknown they begin reproducing at small sizes before cause in the summer of 1996 and 1997. In they become fully vulnerable to fishing gear. the summer of 2006 there was an epizootic Most male lake whitefish and probably one- of lake whitefish in management unit H-05 half the females have spawned once before of Lake Huron due possibly to viral hemor- they become fully vulnerable (≈48 cm TL) rhagic septicemia (VHS) because the disease to the fishing gear. Exploitation rates - typi was detected in lake whitefish from the near- cally range from 10 to 30% for lake white- by management unit H-04 in the summer of fish stocks but in some stocks it has exceeded 2005 (Ebener and Arts 2007; MiDNR 2007). 50% (Woldt et al. 2006; Ebener and Copes The causative agent of bacterial kidney dis- 1985; Scheerer and Taylor 1985; Rybicki and ease (BKD) Renibacterium salmoninarum Schneeberger 1990; Schorfhaar and Schnee- has been found in lake whitefish from Lake berger 1997). Michigan and Huron, and fish from manage- The change in bathymetric distribution ment unit H-O2 in Lake Huron showed active of stocks in lakes Michigan and Ontario, and clinical signs of BKD in the summer of 2004 probably elsewhere, due to changes in water (Ebener and Arts 2007). Fatty acid profiles of clarity and food availability, has reduced ex- lake whitefish vary among stocks (Ebener and ploitation and shifted the jurisdictions where Arts 2007) due probably to spatial differenc- 108 Ebener et al. es in food preferences (Pothoven et al. 2001; whitefish during 2000–2005 (Table 1). The Pothoven 2005; Pothoven and Nalepa 2006) decline in number of licensed commercial and different levels of ecosystem stress. We fishers has been much greater in the U.S. than suspect that VHS, BKD, and essential fatty in Canada. acids play a key, but yet undefined, role in the rate and magnitude of natural mortality in Yield and effort lake whitefish populations of the Great Lakes (Ebener and Arts 2007). While lake whitefish are harvested from all five Great Lakes, the fishery is concen- The Fishery After 1960 trated in the upper lakes. During 1994–2004, Lake Huron accounted for 57% of the Great The recovery of lake whitefish popula- Lakes yield, followed by Michigan (28%), tions and fisheries since 1960 has been phe- Superior (9%), Erie (4%), and Ontario (2%). nomenal (Reckahn 1995; Ebener 1997; Mohr Of the fishers that harvest lake whitefish, 79% and Nalepa 2005) and they now support do so in lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan. the largest commercial fishery on the Great Lake Superior has the greatest number of li- Lakes. Commercial yield of lake whitefish censes, followed by lakes Michigan, Huron, increased by 248,000 kg/year from 1959 to Erie, and Ontario (Table 1). Three U.S. states, 1998 before declining by 423,000 kg/year the Province of Ontario, and nine aboriginal through 2004. The peak yield was 9.8 mil- (Native American) governments license com- lion kg in 1998 and the yield in 2004 was 7.3 mercial fisheries on Lake Superior, whereas million kg (Figure 1). Although the yield in only the Province of Ontario has a fishery on 2004 was lower than the previous six years, Lake Ontario. The Province of Ontario has the it was still greater than 121 of the previous largest number of commercial fishers that har- 138 years. Yield of lake whitefish observed vest lake whitefish, followed by the Chippewa over the last 46 years has been unparalleled Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), and the in the Great Lakes basin and no doubt driven State of Wisconsin. The states of Minnesota, by both increased abundance and efficiency Illinois, Indiana, and New York have no com- of the fishery. Present levels of commercial mercial fisheries for lake whitefish. yield meet or exceed lake-specific objectives More commercial fisheries use large-mesh that have been developed by fishery manage- gill nets of 114 mm stretch mesh and larger ment agencies to guide rehabilitation and than any other gear to harvest lake whitefish. protection of lake whitefish in lakes Superior, Large-mesh gill nets are used by 72% of the Huron, and Michigan (DesJardine et al. 1995; commercial licenses, while deep trap nets are Eshenroder et al. 1995a; Horns et al. 2003). used by 22%. Large-mesh gill nets are used Amazingly these yields occurred during on all the Great Lakes to harvest lake white- a period of attrition in the fishery. In 1960, fish, but only Native American fishers and thousands of commercial fishing operations fishers licensed by the State of Wisconsin and scattered along the shores of the Great Lakes the Province of Ontario can legally use them. harvested lake whitefish. Nearly 6,000 com- The Province of Ontario has the largest gill mercial fishers were employed in the U.S. net fishery, while CORA member tribes have and Canadian Great Lakes fisheries during the most licenses that use trap nets (Table 1). the 1960s, but by the 1990s there were fewer More fishers use trap nets on Lake Michigan than 3,000 (Brown et al. 1999). The decline than elsewhere. Two pound-net fisheries, one in the number of fishers has continued, and trawl fishery, and one hoop-net fishery make only 620 licensees reported harvesting lake up the remainder of the lake whitefish fishery. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 109 Table 1. Average number of commercial fishing licenses issued by each political jurisdiction on the Great Lakes and number of fishing operations using large-mesh gill nets, trap nets, and other types of fishing gears to harvest lake whitefish during 2000–2005. Other types of fishing gear include trawls, pound nets, and hoop nets.

Mgt Number Fishing gear Lake Jurisdictionunits Agency licensesgill nettrap netother Superior Wisconsin2 State of Wisconsin10 450 Red Cliff tribal 25 24 10 Bad River tribal 1 100

Michigan 9State of Michigan 8 260 Chippewa Ottawa tribal 47 45 80 Bad River tribal 5 500 Red Cliff tribal 4 400 Keweenaw Bay tribal 17 16 10

Minnesota 3State of Minnesota 0 000 Grand Portage tribal 2 200

Ontario34Province of Ontario35 3500 Provincal communal 4 400 Batchewana tribal 12 12 00 Superior total48 170 154210

HuronMichigan8 State of Michigan 14 0131 Chippewa Ottawa tribal 63 53 19 0

Ontario16Province of Ontario58 5820 Provincal communal 6 600 Saugeen Ojibway tribal 13 12 00 Huron total24 154 129341

Michigan Michigan 9State of Michigan 11 0101 Chippewa Ottawa tribal 73 62 30 0

Wisconsin5 State of Wisconsin81 33202

Illinois1 State of Illinois 0 000

Indiana1 State of Indiana 0 000 Michigan total16 165 95 60 3

Erie Ontario3Province of Ontario103 53 10

Ohio 3 State of Ohio 2 020

Michigan 0State of Michigan 0 000

Pennsylvania1 State of Pennsylvania 1 010

New York 0State of New York 0 000 Erie total7 106 5340

OntarioOntario 6Province of Ontario24 13110

New York 0State of New York 0 000 Ontario total6 24 13 11 0 110 Ebener et al. Trap net effort for lake whitefish has Large-mesh gill net effort was more sta- generally been declining over the last 25 ble than trap net effort over the last 25 years. years. Annual trap net effort ranged from Annual large-mesh gill net effort ranged from 19,200–30,400 lifts and averaged 25,600 30,900–39,400 km and averaged 32,900 km/ lifts/year during 1979–2004 (Figure 4). year during 1979–2004. Gill net effort has Trap net effort on Lake Michigan made consistently been greatest on Lake Huron up 45% of the basin-wide effort during even though there are more gill net fishers on 1979–2004 averaging 10,400 lifts/year, but Lake Superior. Gill net effort on Lake Huron declined 28% after 1991. Trap net effort increased from 11,200 km in 1979 to an aver- also declined on lakes Erie and Huron, 63% age of 17,900 km during 2000–2004. Gill net from 1996 to 2003 and 45% from 1983 to effort on Lake Superior has been much more 2004, respectively. Trap net effort on Lake variable ranging from 4,900–17,500 km/year Superior was relatively constant during during 1979–2004. Gill net effort in Lake 1979–2004, while trap net effort on Lake Erie increased from 658 km in 1992 to 3,800 Ontario was insignificant in comparison to km in 2002 as abundance of lake whitefish the other lakes. increased. On Lake Ontario, large-mesh gill

Gill Net 60

Superior Michigan Huron 50 Erie Ontario

40

30

20

10 Thousands of kilometers 0 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 Year

Trap Net 50 Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario 40 s

30

20

Thousands of lift 10

0 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 Year Figure 4. Large-mesh gill net and deep trap net commercial fishing effort for lake whitefish in each Great Lake during 1979–2004. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 111

Superior Er ie 2.0 1.0 s s

am am 0.8 1.5 gr gr 0.6 1.0 of kilo of kilo

0.4 0.5 ons ons 0.2

Milli 0.0 Milli 0.0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992199620002004 1960 1964 1968 1972197619801984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Hu ron Ontario 5.0 1.0 s s

am 4.0 am 0.8

ogr 3.0 ogr 0.6

of kil 2.0 of kil 0.4 s s s

on 1.0 on 0.2 illi illi

M 0.0 M 0.0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992199620002004 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Michigan All Lakes 5.0 10.0 s s

am 4.0 am 8.0

ogr 3.0 ogr 6.0

of kil 2.0 of kil 4.0 s s s

on 1.0 on 2.0 illi illi

M 0.0 M 0.0 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992199620002004 1960 1964 19681972197619801984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 Figure 5. Commercial fishery yield (millions of kilograms) of lake whitefish from each Great Lake during 1960–2004.

net effort declined from 112 km in 1992 to 29 slower, yet similar rate, in lakes Erie and On- km in 2004 as lake whitefish populations de- tario. Yield peaked in 1993 in Lake Michigan clined in the Kingston Basin. On Lake Michi- (3.78 million kg), 1996 in Lake Ontario (0.29 gan, gill net effort declined 80% from 1979 million kg), 1998 in Lake Huron (4.49 mil- to 2004 because of negotiated settlements be- lion kg), and 2000 in Erie (0.61 million kg). tween CORA member tribes and the State of Yield of lake whitefish from Lake Superior Michigan and attrition of the gill-net fishery. after 1960 peaked at 1.76 million kg in 1990, Patterns in yield were very similar among then declined through 1995 before increasing lakes, but the timing of when yields began to to 1.72 million kg in 2004. increase from historic lows was one to two Commercial yields are greater on Lake decades earlier on the upper Great Lakes than Huron because, unlike in other Great Lakes, on the lower lakes (Figure 5). Commercial lake whitefish are harvested throughout its fishery yield reached its lowest levels in 1957 waters. Lake whitefish are harvested in ev- in Lake Michigan (11,300 kg), 1959 in Lake ery management unit of Lake Huron except Huron (203,600 kg), 1960 in Lake Superior H-08 and the largest yields over the last 15 (174,000 kg), 1970 in Lake Erie (0 kg), and years have been from management units 4–4 1981 in Lake Ontario (900 kg). In the three and 4–5 (Mohr and Ebener 2005b). In Lake upper Great Lakes yield began increasing Michigan more than 90% of the commercial almost immediately thereafter. Commercial yield is taken from the northern one-third of yield of lake whitefish increased at a much the lake. The commercial fishery in Lake On- 112 Ebener et al. tario operates almost solely in eastern Ontario of lake trout. The Province of Ontario pur- waters around Prince Edward Island and the posefully limits commercial fishing for lake Kingston Basin management units 1–1 to 1– whitefish to the fall spawning period in the 4 (Casselman et al. 1996; Hoyle 2005). The Kingston Basin and eastern Ontario waters of commercial fishery in Lake Erie occurs main- Lake Ontario because their bycatch is consid- ly in the western basin in Ontario waters. In erably greater during other seasons of the year. Lake Superior commercial fishery harvests of Lake trout are not stocked in northern Wiscon- lake whitefish are greatest in Whitefish Bay sin waters of Lake Michigan around the Door and the Apostle Islands, followed by the west Peninsula (Figure 2) to minimize their inci- and east sides of the Keweenaw Peninsula, dental catch in the large-mesh gill-net fishery. and Thunder, Black, and Nipigon bays. In addition, large-mesh gill nets are prohibited in areas south of the Door Peninsula. Refuges Bycatch have been established in lakes Huron, Michi- gan, and Superior to provide lake trout protec- Bycatch in the lake whitefish fishery, tion from exploitation by commercial and rec- particularly in large-mesh gill nets, has been reational fisheries (Hansen et al. 1995; Holey substantial and considered one of the primary et al. 1995; Eshenroder et al. 1995b). Many impediments to recovery of lake trout popu- state governments have prohibited the use of lations in the Great Lakes (Hansen 1999; large-mesh gill nets to reduce the incidental Johnson et al. 2004a). An estimated 71,000 catch of lake trout. Most negotiated settle- lake trout were taken incidentally in commer- ments between Native American governments cial gill-net fisheries for lake whitefish and and state agencies over treaty rights (Brown deepwater ciscoes Coregonus spp. in Michi- et al. 1999) have revolved around minimizing gan waters of Lake Michigan in 1968 (Ry- the incidental catch of lake trout in the tribal bicki and Schneeberger 1990), while an esti- gill-net fisheries (see Evolution of Governance mated 30,000–66,000 lake trout were killed Structures section). incidentally each year in the large-mesh gill Numerous studies have documented the net fishery for lake whitefish in Wisconsin incidental kill of other species important to waters of Lake Michigan during 1977–1983 recreational fisheries, including some consid- (Holey 1985). Lake trout were not legal com- ered endangered, in trap-net fisheries for lake mercial fish species in either state-licensed whitefish (Smith 1988; Schorfhaar and Peck fishery (see Evolution of Governance Struc- 1993; Johnson et al. 2004b). In Michigan tures section). Survival of lake trout released waters of southern Lake Michigan 60–80% alive from a large-mesh gill net fishery varied of yellow perch Perca fluvescens, Pacific seasonally from 21 to 31% in Wisconsin wa- salmon and rainbow trout O. mykiss caught ters of Lake Superior during 1993 and 1994 in trap nets died from gilling (Smith 1988). where they could be legally harvested under In Lake Superior the common loon Gavia individual transferable quotas (Gallinat et al. immer was regularly observed caught in trap 1997). Survival of lake trout released from nets and their mortality was 100% (Schor- trap nets is considerably higher and was es- fhaar and Peck 1993). Mesh size in the top timated to be 88% for the state-licensed trap- of the trap-net hearts was increased to 35.6 net fishery in northern Lake Huron in 1998 cm (14 in) stretch mesh to reduce mortality and 1999, and the lowest survival was during of the common loon. Other recommendations the summer (Johnson et al. 2004b). were made that would require shoaling twine Management agencies have taken consid- (mesh of 50-mm or less) in the top of the pot erable action to minimize the incidental catch over the tunnel to reduce gilling of fish.

Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 113 Effects of dreissenid mussels for trap net fisheries was effectively increased nearly 25 mm (one inch) on an ad hoc basis The invasion of dreissenid mussels and in many areas of the Great Lakes by the com- the decline of Diporeia spp. have substan- mercial fishermen themselves because 43–45 tially altered the lake whitefish fishery. The cm long lake whitefish are not easy to market bathymetric distribution of lake whitefish in even though they can be legally harvested. lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario increased The loss of body girth in lake whitefish from (Hoyle 2005; Owens et al. 2005; Mohr and lakes Ontario, Huron, and Michigan during Ebener 2005b) as a consequence of the inva- the mid-1990s dramatically reduced catch- sion of dreissenid mussels partly because the ability in the gill net fishery, consequently mussel’s filtering activities increased light gill net fisheries must now catch more fish to penetration in the water column (Barbiero achieve the same level of yield or to reach et al. 2006) and partly because of the loss of their individual harvest limits. Diporeia (Nalepa et al. 2005). Both trap-net Catchability of lake whitefish by both and gill-net fisheries have increased their av- trap nets and gill nets has declined because erage depth of fishing in order to capture lake of substantial increases in biomass of the whitefish in deeper water (Mohr and Ebener filamentous algae Cladophora glomerata. 2005a, 2005b), but trap-net fisheries can’t Beginning about 1994 commercial fisher- fish as deep as gill net fisheries because it men began reporting that their trap nets and is too difficult to keep the gear taut. Gill-net gill nets were being clogged with a “green fisheries, on the other hand, have little prob- slime” that prevented the gear from fishing lem pursuing lake whitefish in deeper water. properly so nets had to be removed from the Fishing in deep water further from shore re- water and washed on shore or destroyed. Re- quires a large vessel that increases the cost ports of green slime (Cladophora) clogging of fishing; consequently, the number of mar- commercial gear have become more fre- ginally profitable small boat gill-net fisheries quent and widespread annually since 1997, has declined on the Great Lakes since arrival especially in the northern one-third of lakes of dreissenid mussels. There is anecdotal in- Huron and Michigan. In these areas large formation from commercial fishers in lakes wind events that occur in late May or early Michigan and Huron that lake whitefish are June leave commercial fishing gear smoth- once again beginning to inhabit waters of ered in Cladophora, consequently fishers 25–35 m during much of the year, possibly to must spend weeks to months cleaning their feed upon very abundant populations of dreis- gear. Cladophora has been called the “wall senid mussels (Pothoven and Nalepa 2006). of green” and has proliferated because of in- Poor condition and slow growth during creased water transparency and phosphorus the last decade has reduced the marketability availability to the benthic environment fol- of lake whitefish and the ability of the fish- lowing establishment of dreissenid mussels ery to harvest them. During the early to mid- (Higgins et al. 2005). Many nearshore areas 1990s commercial fishermen in lakes- On can no longer be fished during May through tario, Huron, and Michigan reported catching September because large suspended mats of many emaciated lake whitefish, particularly Cladophora clog nets. The proliferation of in the trap-net fisheries. Fish buyers did not Cladophora has reduced commercial yields want these emaciated fish so trap-net fishers in northern lakes Michigan and Huron by 20– were forced to release many legal-sized fish 30% during the late spring and summer since that previously would have been harvested. the late-1990s. The large-mesh gill-net fishery Consequently, the minimum legal size limit has been impacted to a much greater degree 114 Ebener et al. than the trap-net fishery because trap nets commercial fishers is for small number ones, can be removed and cleaned then set again thereafter, the price increases with weight when covered with Cladophora, whereas gill class. Jumbo whitefish are always twenty nets are typically destroyed or the twine is cents to one dollar more per pound than me- removed and replaced. In addition, trap nets diums; mediums are usually ten to fifty cents can catch some fish when covered with the more than large number ones, which are five green slime, whereas gill nets can’t. to ten cents more than small number ones. Number ones make up the bulk of the yield Value of the fishery (80%) from the Great Lakes. Medium and jumbo-sized lake whitefish make up a much Lake whitefish is one of the three prime larger proportion of the harvest in Lake Su- commercial species of the Great Lakes along perior and Ontario waters in Lake Huron with yellow perch and the walleye Sander than in other lakes. vitreus. The primary supply chain for fresh- The value of the lake whitefish landed caught lake whitefish is from commercial catch averaged U.S.$16.6 million during fishers to processors located along the shore 1994–2004. After 2001, the value of this of the Great Lakes then to larger-scale pro- fishery was higher in Canada than in the U.S. cessors and markets in the U.S. Midwest Prices paid to commercial fishers averaged region and eastern seaboard, and southern U.S.$0.77/lb during 1994–2004 and ranged Ontario. The large-scale processors distribute from $0.69/lb in 1995 to $0.90/lb in 2000. value-added products and fresh lake white- Prices declined to $0.82/lb in 2001 then fur- fish to up-scale delicatessens and restaurants, ther to $0.80/lb in 2002 before increasing large and small grocery markets, or sell the slightly in 2003 and 2004. The value of the fish directly to consumers, throughout the harvest increased from $16 million in 1994 U.S. and Canada. Fish are shipped via refrig- to $20 million in 2000 then declined as total erated trucks from the Great Lakes region catch and price per pound declined. The an- to the large-scale processors every Tuesday nual value of the harvest ranged from $8.7 or Friday, but when catches are large trucks to $10.2 million in the U.S. and $6.0 to $9.7 will travel daily. Traditionally, whole or gut- million in Canada during 1994–2000 (Table ted lake whitefish were sold directly to New 2). After 2000 value in the U.S. ranged from York City, Detroit, and Chicago for the Jew- $6.0 to $8.3 million compared to $7.6 to $9.0 ish community. Prices paid for lake whitefish million in Canada. Essentially, the value of always increase during the Jewish holidays of the landed catch has declined in the Great Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Lakes since the mid-1990s largely because Processors purchase lake whitefish from of reduced catches and declining price per commercial fishers based upon weight of pound in the U.S. Price per pound in Canada individual fish. Lake whitefish that weigh has increased from about U.S.$0.65/lb in less than three pounds are sold as “number 1994 to $0.83/lb in 2004 primarily due to in- ones,” fish of three to four pounds are sold creased prices for lake whitefish from Lake as “mediums,” and fish greater than four Huron. pounds are sold as “jumbos.” Since roughly Average price per pound was highest on the year 2000, lake whitefish weighing less Lake Michigan during 1994–2004, but the than two pounds have been sold as “small Lake Huron fishery was more valuable- be number ones,” and fish weighting between cause of its greater yield. The average price two to three pounds are sold as “large num- paid for lake whitefish was U.S.$0.83/lb ber ones.” The lowest price per pound paid to from Lake Michigan, $0.77/lb from Superior, Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 115 $0.75/lb from Huron, $0.70/lb from Erie, and practices or cause displacement of fishers. $0.56/lb from Ontario (Table 2). It is some- U.S. commercial fishers received on average what surprising that Lake Michigan fishers U.S.$0.85/lb in 1980 for lake whitefish com- receive more money per pound for their fish pared to $0.79/lb in 2004. Canadian Great since most restaurants and retail shops in the Lakes commercial fishers fared only slightly Great Lakes basin advertise their products as better as in 1980 they received on average fresh “Lake Superior whitefish” to capitalize U.S.$0.89/lb compared to $0.83/lb in 2004. on consumers correct perception that Lake Using the consumer price index to adjust Superior is more pristine than the other Great 1980 dollars to 2004 dollars, U.S. and Cana- Lakes. Processors pay more for Lake Michi- dian commercial fishers should have been re- gan fish because they are reported to contain ceiving U.S.$1.95 and $2.04/lb, respectively, more fat, which imparts a better flavor in both to keep pace with inflation. In response, many fresh and smoked products. The cumulative small and marginally profitable fisheries have dockside value of the landed catch from Lake discontinued fishing or fish only when lake Huron was U.S.$102 million during 1994– whitefish are very abundant near shore in the 2004 compared to $55 million from Lake spring and fall. Some trap-net fisheries have Michigan, $17 million from Superior, $7 mil- gone to lifting nets only one to two times per lion from Erie, and $2 million from Ontario. week instead of every day to reduce operat- Prices of lake whitefish declined af- ing costs, or they fish more nets to increase ter the September 2001 attack on the World yield. Finally, some gill-net operations only Trade Center in New York City, New York. fish when the price of fish is highest during Processing facilities in New York City were the winter and early spring. located near the World Trade Center and after Inconsistency in quality of lake whitefish the 9/11 attack fish could not be trucked to sold to consumers has affected the price per the processing facilities because roads were pound paid to commercial fishers. The incon- closed due to the disaster. After 9/11 many sistency can be attributed to differing harvest processors in the Great Lakes basin refused methods, differing practices of individual to accept small number ones, or offered un- fishers, seasonality of production, and the dif- acceptably low prices for them. The reduced ficulty in maintaining an extended shelf life. market demand for small number ones forced The trap-net fishery produces a much fresher the commercial trap net fishery to further sort and saleable product than the gill-net fishery; and release legal-sized lake whitefish just as consequently gill net-caught lake whitefish they had to do because of declines in condi- are less valuable than trap net-caught fish. tion of lake whitefish. Faced with competi- Large influxes of lake whitefish from trap-net tion from all the “small fish” being harvest- fisheries flood processors during a few weeks ed by trap-net fisheries in the U.S., gill-net in the spring and the fall, especially in the fisheries in Canadian waters of Lake Huron U.S. A seasonally large supply of lake white- switched to target the largest lake whitefish fish during May through October for a limited possible because the best prices were paid for market adds tremendous downward pressure mediums and jumbos. This selective harvest on prices. The reduced prices place demands strategy for larger lake whitefish has been go- on commercial fishers to increase harvest lev- ing on for at least ten years, but has been very els as a means of meeting payroll and equip- evident since 9/11. ment payment obligations, thus contributing Prices paid to commercial fishers for to further erosion of prices. In contrast to the lake whitefish have not kept pace with the open-water period, landings are low from cost of fishing and has begun to alter fishing December through March, when the market 116 Ebener et al. Lake Michigan 5.74 5.74 6.21 6.05 6.32 6.28 5.15 4.21 3.00 3.26 3.21 0.79 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.87 0.94 1.07 0.91 0.77 0.82 0.80 Lake Ontario 0.30 0.31 0.48 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.68 0.74 0.43 0.52 0.52 0.45 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.36 Canada 0.29 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.90 0.83 0.54 0.52 0.63 0.62 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.79 0.90 0.85 Lake Erie U.S. 0.31 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.76 0.71 0.86 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.76 0.79 0.71 0.77 1.00 Canada 5.09 5.80 6.17 5.93 6.63 7.44 7.91 7.29 7.22 6.86 6.41 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.66 0.67 0.81 0.81 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.84 Lake Huron U.S. 2.43 2.46 2.64 2.47 2.64 2.60 3.71 3.01 2.27 2.57 2.31 0.73 0.66 0.70 0.68 0.75 0.80 1.02 0.87 0.74 0.80 0.81 Canada 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.29 0.59 0.72 0.74 0.69 0.75 0.65 0.72 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.66 0.67 0.81 0.81 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.84 Lake Superior U.S. 1.19 0.44 0.82 0.87 0.98 1.18 1.37 1.02 0.78 0.96 1.24 0.87 0.64 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.79 0.96 0.84 0.69 0.73 0.75 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Statistic Landed value (Millions $U.S.) Price per pound ($U.S.) Landed value (millions of dollars) of the lake whitefish commercial harvest from the Great Lakes and average price per pound Table 2. Table paid to commercial fishermen from the United States (U.S.) and Canada during 1994–2004.Canada, whereas the Lake Michigan catch occurs only in U.S. The Lake Ontario catch occurs only in Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 117 is supplied with a large proportion of frozen bones are either pulled or cut out (v-cut) product. Although freezing per se does not re- from the fillet to make them more palatable sult in inferior products, frozen lake whitefish to consumers. Smoked whitefish sausage fillets held after several months do not com- and “whitefish chip dip” are manufactured pare in favor to fresh fish, nor does it com- from the v-cut or from the flesh of smoked mand an equivalent price per pound. Frozen fish. Great Lakes processors also now sell lake whitefish fillets sold after peak freshness breaded fillets produced from small number has produced a deserved stigma that it is of ones and vacuum pack fillets of fresh and lower quality than the fresh product. These smoked lake whitefish. The market value for inconsistencies in product availability and lake whitefish roe (marketed as golden cav- quality are contributing to stagnation in de- iar) has been increasing over the last several mand and prices for lake whitefish. decades and much of this product is shipped to northern European countries. Globalization In recent years, the use of offshore pro- cessing by some inland producers has con- Great Lakes lake whitefish must now tributed to the low prices in local markets. compete against a variety of fishery prod- Gutted lake whitefish are frozen and shipped ucts in the retail and restaurant sectors. A to China where they are filleted, re-frozen, global economy, the North American Free and shipped back to North America where Trade Agreement, growth in domestic and they are sold at prices similar to fresh fillets. international aquaculture, and expanding While the Chinese-frozen fillets must be la- fishery industries in developing countries beled as an imported product, consumers will have created a greater selection of seafood hardly notice the small print on the back of for the consumer. An example of increased the package. Consumers purchasing these domestic competition for Great Lakes lake twice-frozen fillets are definitely getting a whitefish can be seen in the aquaculture in- poor quality product in comparison to fresh dustry, especially in Ontario waters of the fillets. Great Lakes. In 1999, approximately 3,600 Of late, lake whitefish harvested from metric tons of rainbow trout were produced inland lakes in central and western Canada in Ontario with a value of U.S.$14.8 million. have appeared on the market in increasing That is nearly equal to the current estimated quantities and lower prices, threatening the value of the lake whitefish fishery in all of Great Lakes lake whitefish fishery. These -in the Great Lakes. land-caught lake whitefish are perceived as The markets for lake whitefish are being of low quality because they lack the changing, forcing commercial fishers and color, texture and taste of lake whitefish from Great Lakes processors to change their mar- the Great Lakes, although these western Ca- keting strategies. For example, instead of nadian fish are biologically the same species. only selling large quantities of product to The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation large distribution centers, commercial fish- (FFMC), a Canadian Crown Corporation, dis- ers and Great Lakes processors now fillet tributes lake whitefish from Canadian inland a large amount of lake whitefish and sell lakes into the U.S. and Canada. In most years, the fillets locally, or ship processed fillets Canadian inland lake fishers are paid less than to large-scale processors instead of sell- U.S.$0.40/lb for their lake whitefish (Anony- ing whole or gutted fish. Fillets sold lo- mous 2005). The yield of lake whitefish from cally in the Great Lakes basin are also now Canadian inland lakes purchased by FFMC pin-boned: a process whereby auxiliary rib was over 6.8 million kg in 2003, which near- 118 Ebener et al. ly rivals that harvested from the Great Lakes. Province of Ontario Lake whitefish is the FFMC single largest volume species, representing approximately Commercial fishing for lake whitefish in one-third of all deliveries. The FFMC exports Ontario is thought to have begun in the early to the U.S. account for 67% of its sales, while 1800s with the salting and shipping of lake 21% is sold in Canada. Both U.S. and Cana- whitefish from the Sault Ste. Marie area south dian Great Lakes fishers are competing with to Detroit (Peters 1981). For the first part of this product, since consumers and retail buy- the 19th century, American, Canadian, and ers do not differentiate inland lake whitefish Native American fishers all fished the same from higher quality Great Lakes fish. The Canadian waters for lake whitefish, albeit, lower cost of these government-subsidized not always in harmony. Commercial fishing lake whitefish is pricing Great Lakes lake very quickly became an export business; with whitefish out of the market. First time buyers the majority of all Great Lakes Canadian fish of lake whitefish are being introduced to an being exported to the U.S. (Adams and Ko- inferior product that ultimately has a negative lenosky 1974). The huge reported catches of effect on potential repeat customers. lake whitefish in lakes Erie and Huron in the 1830s brought about Canadian federal inter- Evolution of Governance Structures est in the fisheries because of concerns the populations would be overexploited since Management of lake whitefish com- there were basically no regulations to govern mercial fisheries in the Great Lakes is both the fishery. The creation of the Federal Fisher- simple and complex. The complexity occurs ies Acts of 1857 and 1858, ahead of Canadian because at least 35 Native American govern- confederation, created one set of regulations ments, eight U.S. states, and the Province of for Canadian waters and was considered the Ontario manage lake whitefish on a stock- beginning of a “modern fisheries administra- by-stock basis with little inter-jurisdictional tion” for Upper and Lower Canada. cooperation. The simplicity occurs because Among other things, the Federal Fisher- most individual stocks of lake whitefish are ies Act stipulated that every net and fishery contained within a single political jurisdic- should be licensed and that fishing grounds tion so there is really little need for interna- needed to be leased from the Crown. This in- tional governance of the populations. Regu- cluded American businesses fishing in Canada lations developed in the states of Michigan and Native Americans that did not recognize and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario Canadian government intervention. Large essentially determine the fate of lake white- American and European firms approved of fish commercial fisheries on the Great Lakes the licensing process as it added security to because these three political jurisdictions ac- their investments in the fishery businesses. count for nearly all the yield of lake white- The Federal Fisheries Act also regulated fish from the Great Lakes. The largest yields fishing seasons, imposed gear restrictions in came from within the state of Michigan certain areas, called for fishways on dams (54.7%) followed by the province of Ontario for potadromous salmonids and introduced (33.1%) and the state of Wisconsin (11.8%) the concept of fisheries overseers. One of the during 1971–2004. Of the 211 million kg first amendments to the Federal Fisheries Act of lake whitefish harvested from the Great took place in 1868 when a closed season was Lakes during 1971–2004, only 0.96 million imposed on the lake whitefish fisheries along kg were taken from Great Lakes waters of with a restriction disallowing seine fish- the six other political jurisdictions. ing for lake whitefish from May to August

Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 119 (Canada Statutes, 31 Victoria c.60, May 22, wasn’t until the 1920s that Ontario hired its 1868). Other standard regulations utilized in first fisheries scientists and began to explore Ontario waters included minimum size lim- the possibility of managing the resource from its, and season and area closures. The more a scientific perspective. Unfortunately, this contentious issues related to controlling gear came about after the first collapse of the fish- type and quantity were managed in an ad hoc eries. The subsequent total collapse of lake manner, with some restrictions applied to in- whitefish and lake trout populations in the dividual companies or by government agents 1950s brought the need for more comprehen- in specific areas on individual lakes. sive management to the forefront. Access to Canadian waters was originally Prior to, during, and after the collapse unrestricted and American companies domi- of lake whitefish populations, the principal nated the commercial fishery largely due to management tool utilized by Ontario was the the large markets in the eastern U.S. By the control of fishing effort. In some cases this 1880s the lake whitefish commercial fishery meant limiting the number or size of pound yield had begun to increase exponentially, nets or fyke nets, or the number of gill nets peaking in 1885 (Baldwin et al. 2000). The that could be employed per boat, or the re- federal government’s response was to appoint striction of mesh sizes to target specific seg- Ontario’s first Royal Commission on the Fish- ments of the population. The role of the gov- eries of the Province in 1892 (CDMF AR SP ernment agents was eventually taken over No. 10c, 1893). This commission attempted by district managers and supervisors under to more closely document the harvests that the Ontario Department of Game and Fish, were occurring, but more importantly to ad- the Ontario Department of Lands and For- dress the lack of rules and law enforcement ests, and then ultimately the Ontario Min- associated with the commercial fisheries in istry of Natural Resources (OMNR), and it Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. was these individuals who were responsible The province of Ontario and the federal for determining which regulations would be government fought over control of the Great used and where. In 1980 there were 37 differ- Lakes fisheries throughout the 1880s and ent administrative districts that bordered the 1890s. Finally in 1898, the Privy Council Great Lakes in Ontario, most of which had heard a court case put forth by the province responsibilities for commercial fishing activ- and decided that fisheries management would ity within the boundaries of their district. be split between the two parties. The province In 1976 OMNR published a Strategic would take control of laws, licenses, taxation Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOF) (OMNR of the resource, and enforcement of the laws. 1974) which outlined basic principles that The regulations on seasons, gear, taxation the province should pursue in order to bet- measures and the power of veto remained ter manage the fishery resources it controlled. with the federal government (Peters 1981). The development of four Great Lakes Assess- Ontario quickly formed the new Ontario De- ment Units ensued, aimed at aiding managers partment of Fisheries (ODF) in 1899 to over- in making more science-based commercial see the fisheries of the province. This- sig fishery management decisions. This - docu naled the decline in the number of American ment also recommended a rationalization of businesses in the commercial fishing industry the commercial industry in Ontario. In 1980, and the formation of Ontario businesses. the Deputy Minister of OMNR appointed a The ODF continued to license and man- committee to address four issues: the mod- age the lake whitefish fishery although man- ernization of the commercial industry in On- agement was viewed as “politically” based. It tario, the determination of methods for pre- 120 Ebener et al. dicting resource availability, the development and were now assigned to one individual of policies for the regulation of commercial rather than several. This modern commercial harvests, and the development of an improved fishery management structure still exists in system for the licensing of commercial fish- Ontario today. ermen (OMNR 1982). In an attempt to accommodate Native The report on the modernization of the American (First Nations in Canada) fisher- Ontario commercial fishery (OMNR 1982) ies for lake whitefish and other species the created some of the most significant changes province of Ontario has “bought” ITQs from in the commercial fishery since its incep- individual provincial fishermen and allocated tion. In 1984, individual transferable quotas them to the First Nation governments. There (ITQs) were implemented in all of the Great are 27 First Nations bordering Ontario waters Lakes for all of the major commercially valu- of lake Huron and Superior, but not all them able fish species. Quotas for the most part commercially fish for lake whitefish. In some consisted of large allocations to individual instances OMNR has allocated ITQs for spe- licenses for abundant species in well-defined cific areas exclusively to the First Nations management areas on each lake (Figure 2). under what is termed communal fishing -li Even though this system replaced effort- censes. Essentially, these communal licenses based management, in many cases most of are an agreement between a First Nation and the same effort controls were incorporated OMNR over allocation of lake whitefish re- into the new system. Emphasis was placed sources, with the First Nation agreeing that upon science-based assessment of the fish the province has primary management re- populations and the need for trust between sponsibility but licensing is the responsibility regulators and fishers in both the evaluation of the First Nation. There are currently four of the populations and the provision of data communal licenses issued on Lake Superior from the commercial harvest (OMNR 1982). and six issued on Lake Huron. In other areas Additional license conditions were imple- such as the Bruce Peninsula of Lake Huron mented in attempts to address issues such as (Figure 2) the province has purchased lake sustainability of fish stocks, incidental catch whitefish ITQs from provincial-licensed fish- rates, rehabilitation of indigenous fishes, and ers so as to accommodate co-management conflicts among fishermen and other user with First Nation governments that do not groups. The development of large recreation- want to forfeit management responsibility al fisheries on the Great Lakes (Bence and (see Saugeen Ojibway section). Smith 1999) created a need for more closely managed commercial fisheries in order to en- State of Michigan sure proper allocation among user groups and to minimize conflicts. Brege and Kevern (1978) summarized the Great Lakes assessment units continued evolution of the governance structures affect- to collect and provide information that was ing state-licensed fisheries for lake whitefish then synthesized and provided to district man- in the State of Michigan during 1865–1975. agers who made final management decisions The summary was based on a review of the for their areas. In 1992, OMNR created four following sources: Michigan Public Acts, Great Lakes Management Units under a new 1865 through 1973; Michigan Administra- Great Lakes Branch. The end result was that tive Code, 1954, plus Annual Administra- now both assessment and management were tive Code Supplements during 1954–1975; under the same leadership and management Michigan Natural Resources Laws compiled responsibility for each of the Great Lakes, by the Department of Natural Resources in Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 121 1972; Michigan Statutes Annotated, Vol. 9, trout rehabilitation, and terminated com- Title 13; Michigan Compiled Laws, 1871, mercial fishing for yellow perch, walleye, 1897, 1915, 1929, 1948, and 1970 editions. and lake trout, reserving these major species According to the authors, commercial fish- for recreational fisheries. Reducing conflicts eries in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes between recreational and commercial fisher- were largely unregulated in the early to mid ies has been a priority for the State and an- 1800s, but became much more restricted over other reason for the Zone Management Plan. time. During this period, there was a co-evo- A 1970 revision of the Zone Management lution as changes in regulations sought to deal Plan gave the MiDNR Director authority to with and address innovations and changes in fix species-specific catch quotas in each zone fishing gear and techniques. All regulations of the Great Lakes. For example, commercial between 1865 and 1955 were brought about fishing for lake whitefish in Michigan waters as legislative acts (Table 3). Starting in 1955, of Lake Erie was prohibited in 1973. Act 218 empowered the Michigan Conserva- tion Commission to “suspend, abridge, ex- State of Wisconsin tend, modify, increase, or decrease the open seasons and size limits on fish as established Development of present-day manage- by the commercial fishing law of 1929.” ment policy in Wisconsin for the most part Subsequently, Act 336 switched commercial occurred independently on Lake Superior fishery regulatory authority to the Director of and Lake Michigan, but first on Lake Supe- Michigan Department of Natural Resources rior. The commercial fishery for lake trout (MiDNR) in 1968. was closed in 1962 throughout U.S. waters Significant changes in regulation of the of Lake Superior, including Wisconsin where commercial lake whitefish fishery in Michi- there were 67 commercial licenses. In 1967 gan occurred in the 1960s. The MiDNR es- the Wisconsin legislature passed a resolution tablished a Great Lakes fishery management promoting limited entry to the fishery so the policy in 1966 that favored recreational fish- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ing over commercial fishing (Legault et al. (WiDNR) immediately capped the number of 1978; Keller and Smith 1990; Rybicki and commercial licenses. The WiDNR also de- Schneeberger 1990). Then, in 1969, Michi- veloped a policy for permitting new fishers gan established a limited entry program into the fishery that took into account a per- for commercial fisheries in the upper Great sons’ investment into the fishery or amount Lakes to: (1) preserve, protect, and enhance of gear they owned, or how much time they the fishery resource itself; (2) make the com- spent participating in the fishery (Chiarappa mercial fishery an asset that contributes to and Szylvian 2003). By the time the lake the public good rather than being a liability; trout fishery was opened again in Wiscon- and (3) restore and improve the economic sin waters of Lake Superior in 1970 only 21 viability of the commercial fishing busi- commercial licenses were allowed to partici- ness (W.R. Crowe, MiDNR memorandum, pate. In 1976 the 70,000-ha Gull Island Shoal 1968), as well as to prevent over-capitaliza- Refuge was created to protect lake trout from tion of the fishery (Keller and Smith 1990). expanding gill net and recreational fisheries Also in 1969, a Zone Management Plan was (Swanson and Swedberg 1980). A series of established to help manage the fisheries for negotiated settlements ensued between WiD- maximum public benefit. Toward that end, NR and Native American governments over the Zone Management Plan banned gill nets allocation of fish resources and regulation from areas regarded as important for lake of the commercial fishery in Wisconsin wa- 122 Ebener et al. Table 3. Chronology of public acts and orders that affected fishing for lake whitefish in Michi- gan waters of the upper Great Lakes during 1865–1975. See Brege and Kevern (1978) for details.

Area Quotas Season

Year License By catch Size limit Authority Reporting Mesh / gear Act / Order Order / Act 1865 350 X X 1875 188 X 1885 91 X 1897 151 X X X 1899 88 X 1901 100 X 1903 13 X 1903 78 X 1903 108 X 1905 275 X 1905 324 X 1907 5 X 1907 102 X X 1907 153 X 1907 212 X 1909 213 X X X X X X 1913 97 X X X 1919 159 X X X X X 1927 158 X X 1929 84 X X X X X 1931 159 X 1933 255 X X X X 1934 25 X 1935 221 X 1937 348 X X X X 1939 312 X X 1953 195 X 1955 218 X 1957 277 X 1960 3 X 1965 9 X X 1968 16 X 1969 17 X X X 1970 17 X X X X X 1970 20 X 1973 17 X X 1974 17 X X

Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 123 ters of Lake Superior. These settlements (see states, were dominated by the commercial section on Governance of Native American fishing industry. The advisory boards were Fishers, Lake Superior Ojibway) established established to assist in development of man- additional refuges and restricted areas where agement policy and legislation that affected commercial fishing for lake whitefish was the fishery, and to deal with industry deci- prohibited, it also limited fishing effort and sions such as licensing and allocation of implemented individual quotas for lake trout. quotas among fishers (Legault et al. 1978; In 1997 the number of commercial licenses Chiarappa and Szylvian 2003). Through permitted in Wisconsin waters of Lake Supe- the boards, the commercial fishing industry rior was reduced to ten through a retirement had enormous power in terms of controlling program in which eleven commercial fishers their own destiny. were compensated for permanently retiring Significant changes to the lake white- their operations and fishing gear. fish fishery on Lake Michigan occurred with On Lake Michigan the policy was to passage of Senate Bill 409 (SB 409) in the limit entry into the fishery to control further Wisconsin legislature in 1979. SB 409 im- capitalization and prevent overexploitation of plemented the concepts of limited entry and lake whitefish populations and other species zone management, created a fee structure (Legault et al. 1978; Chiarappa and Szylvian for licensing and re-licensing commercial 2003). Unlike in the State of Michigan and fishers and gave WiDNR regulatory author- other U.S. Great Lakes states where large- ity over the commercial fishery under Chap- mesh gill nets were banned for commercial ter 25 of the administrative code (Legault use (Legault et al. 1978; Chiarappa and Szyl- et al. 1978; Chiarappa and Szylvian 2003). vian 2003), WiDNR policy permitted use of The commercial fishing industry had con- large-mesh gill nets for catching lake white- siderable input into the legislation and suc- fish. The State of Wisconsin recognized the cessfully inserted a provision that called for value of the commercial fishery, though it did legislative review of all regulation changes. not seem that way to many fishers, and want- The review process meant that any changes ed it to be viable, continuous, and compatible recommended to Chapter 25 by the WiDNR with recreational fishing. first had to be reviewed in a series of meet- The structure of the current lake white- ings with the commercial fishing industry fish management policy in Wisconsin waters before being presented for discussion to the of Lake Michigan began in 1968 when the Natural Resources Board. Zone management state issued a simple one page policy state- was implemented to segregate commercial ment that gave preference to recreational and recreational fisheries and essentially fisheries because of their greater economic concentrated the lake whitefish fishery in value to society (Legault et al. 1978). Wis- areas of Green Bay and Door County (W-1 consin later retracted that policy and in to W-3), although several fisheries were also 1975 took a new approach where biologi- allowed to operate in W-4 and W-5. cal principles were used to attain optimum Limited entry did not become reality in sustainable use of the resource (Legault et Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan until al. 1978), however, the groundwork had al- 1989. There was a significant influx of new ready been laid for a philosophical shift in commercial fishers to the Wisconsin- fish management that endorsed, among other ery in Lake Michigan after the 1985 negoti- strategies, limiting entry to the commercial ated settlement between MiDNR and Native fishery. Commercial fishing advisory boards American governments in Michigan (U.S. v were established which, unlike in other Michigan 1985; Doherty 1990). These new 124 Ebener et al. fishers were displaced from Michigan- wa The last significant regulatory changed creat- ters because of the settlement and long-time ed a “fleet license” which allows commercial Wisconsin fishers were concerned about vi- operations with more than one license and ability of their lake whitefish fishery with several boats to define how the landed catch so many new entrants to the fishery. Conse- in the coming year will be reported and al- quently, the commercial fishing industry and located among the licenses and boats. Only WiDNR reached an accord to cap the num- one daily catch report needs to be completed ber of licenses and implement ITQs for lake under a fleet license instead of a catch report whitefish. WiDNR developed a TAC for lake for each boat. whitefish in their waters of Lake Michigan and allocated it among three zones. An in- Governance of Native American Fisheries dividual fisher’s share of the TAC in a zone was calculated as their percentage of past Re-affirmation of treaty-reserved fishing yields from that zone over a specified period rights by courts in the U.S. and Canada has of years. Fishers were also required to har- produced the most recent significant struc- vest a minimum weight of lake whitefish in tural change to the lake whitefish fishery in a year in order to receive a license the fol- the Great Lakes. Federal court decisions in lowing year. As part of the 1989 regulation Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ontario during the change fishers were required to complete a late 1960s to the mid-1990s reaffirmed that daily catch report that summarized the total the treaties signed between Native American/ weight of lake whitefish onboard their fish- First Nation people and the U.S. and Cana- ing vessel after lifting nets but before landing dian governments in the mid 1800s had re- their catch. served certain commercial and subsistence A new package of commercial fishing activities that could not be regulated by state/ regulations, created to accommodate opera- provincial governments except under specific tion of the fishery, was put forth by the com- circumstances (Doherty 1990; Brown et al. mercial fishing industry and WiDNR and was 1999; Dochoda 1999; Chiarappa and Szyl- adopted by the Wisconsin legislature in 2006. vian 2003). These court decisions stimulated One provision allows a commercial fisher to expansion of Native American fisheries that transfer their lake whitefish ITQ from one in turn increased competition for lake white- boat to another in their fishery for minimal fish with state and provincial-licensed fishers cost. A second new regulation allows a fish- (Legault et al. 1978; Doherty 1990; Chiarap- er with either health or economic problems pa and Szylvian 2003). to designate their quota to a boat owned by As a consequence of the court decisions, a different fisher in order to meet the mini- Native American/First Nation governments mum level of annual allowable harvest. The and their commercial fisheries have been new package of regulations also implements allocated a large share of the harvestable electronic reporting. Under the electronic re- lake whitefish biomass in the Great Lakes. porting system commercial fishers would es- The original treaties did not specify how re- sentially have a wireless laptop computer on- sources were to be shared, rather, these al- board the fishing vessel with which they could location decisions have been either negoti- enter their daily catch report and transmit the ated between state, provincial, federal, and information to the local WiDNR office. The native governments, or imposed by federal new electronic reporting system abolishes the courts. Regardless, Native American govern- mandatory catch reporting every two weeks, ments are now either the primary managers but it has not been implemented as of 2006. or they have co-management responsibility Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 125 in most traditional lake whitefish commer- ity (COTFMA). The creation of COTFMA cial fishing areas of lakes Superior, Huron, was made possible in May 1979 when a U.S. and Michigan (United States v. Michigan District Court ruled in favor of these tribes 2000). In Ontario the exertion of treaty-re- treaty-reserved fishing rights but stipulated served and aboriginal rights has resulted in that their fishing activities could be regulated several Aboriginal Fishing Agreements be- by the state of Michigan if those activities ing negotiated with individual First Nations. were shown to deplete fish resources (called These fishing agreements take several forms the “Fox Decision”). Subsequently, the U.S. but essentially outline the rules and condi- Department of the Interior established in- tions under which commercial fishing activ- terim regulations to guide commercial fish- ity will be conducted, they outline reporting ing activities by members of the three tribes and enforcement roles and responsibilities, in November 1979. In 1981 the U.S. federal and some include provision for data ex- government allowed the federal regulations change and joint decision-making processes. to lapse, thus exposing COTFMA activities to Native American/First Nation governments regulation by MiDNR. To prevent state regu- can impose further restrictions on their fish- lation the three tribes formed COTFMA and ers that are above and beyond those set out in authorized it to regulate commercial and sub- the Aboriginal Fishing Agreements or nego- sistence fishing activities by their members in tiated settlements. 1836 ceded waters (Doherty 1990; Brown et Re-affirmation of treaty rights has struc- al. 1999; Chiarappa and Szylvian 2003). turally changed the lake whitefish fishery During the process to reaffirm treaty- in three areas—Lake Superior, Michigan reserved fishing rights many confrontations waters of Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron. arose between tribal fishermen and sport an- In the 1836 treaty-ceded waters of eastern glers (Doherty 1990; Chiarappa and Szylvian Lake Superior, northern Lake Huron, and 2003). Tribal commercial fishers believed nearly all Michigan waters of Lake Michi- they had the right to fish anywhere in the 1836 gan CORA regulates the activities of five ceded waters, while sport anglers believed member tribes that commercially fish lake that tribal fishing would deplete fish resources whitefish (Doherty 1990; Brown et al. 1999; and depress property values in important rec- Chiarappa and Szylvian 2003). The Saugeen reational areas such as Grand Traverse Bay Ojibway share co-management responsibil- in Lake Michigan (Figure 2) (Chiarappa and ity with OMNR in Ontario waters of Lake Szylvian 2003). Physical confrontations oc- Huron surrounding the Bruce Peninsula curred between tribal commercial fishers and (Mohr et al. 1997). Lastly, four Ojibway sport anglers, and tribal commercial fishers governments either share or have sole man- routinely had their nets either tampered with agement responsibility of lake whitefish fish- or destroyed by recreational fishers. Newspa- eries in areas of Lake Superior outside the per headlines fanned the flames by claiming 1836 ceded waters. the tribes were given unlimited ability to de- plete fish resources in Michigan as a result Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority of the Fox Decision. In 1984 both COTFMA and state-licensed commercial fisheries for In 1982 the Bay Mills Indian Communi- lake whitefish were halted in several manage- ty, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indi- ment units through U.S. District Court Action ans, and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa that was supported by all parties well before and Chippewa Indians formed the Chippewa/ the usual fall spawning season closure be- Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Author- cause the total allowable catch for those units 126 Ebener et al. had been exceeded. There was no allocation primary rehabilitation zones, maximum mor- of lake whitefish to state-licensed or tribal-li- tality targets, and other strategies that were censed fisheries at this time; consequently an designed to control fishing mortality because open-access fishery had been created in which it was viewed as a significant impediment to a primarily tribal small-boat gill-net fishery rehabilitation of lake trout. competed against a state-licensed trap-net Within this context COTFMA-member fishery for the available lake whitefish. tribal governments negotiated two 15-year Essentially, the tribal commercial fishery agreements with the State of Michigan, U.S. was viewed as the single greatest threat to Department of Interior, and various recre- the sustainability of the fisheries; particularly ational and commercial fishing interests in lake trout. Much of MiDNR Great Lakes fish- 1985 and 2000 that allocated fish resources, ery policy had focused on eliminating gill-net primarily lake whitefish. Both settlements fisheries and reducing commercial fishery were later implemented by federal court- bycatch of trout and salmon. In addition, the ordered Consent Decrees (United States v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had Michigan 1985; United States v. Michigan spent millions of dollars to rear and stock lake 2000). The primary scope of the two Con- trout in hopes of rehabilitating self-sustaining sent Decrees was to allocate fish resources, populations. Both MiDNR and USFWS were separate fishing areas for state-licensed and convinced that tribal commercial fishing with tribal-licensed fisheries, and to promote re- gill nets in the 1836 ceded waters would pre- habilitation of lake trout. The 1985 Consent vent rehabilitation of lake trout (Legault et al. Decree divided the 1836 ceded waters into 1978; Doherty 1990; Chiarappa and Szylvian state-commercial, tribal-commercial, and 2003). Tribal commercial catches of lake recreational fishing zones. Lake trout refuges trout were sizable (160,000 kg) in some areas and primary lake trout rehabilitation zones and insignificant (<100 kg) in others at this recommended in the lake trout rehabilita- time (TFRC 1981). tion plans of lake committees for Superior, Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Huron, and Michigan were adopted into both Fishery Commission (GLFC) (www.glfc. Consent Decrees. The refuges were designed org) had spent considerable time developing to provide sufficient protection to lake trout plans and strategies to promote rehabilitation so that adult populations could build quick- of lake trout in lakes Superior, Huron, and ly and overcome the various bottlenecks to Michigan during the early 1980s (Dochoda their reproduction in areas that contained 1999; Hansen 1999). Lake committees were large quantities of historically known lake composed of a fishery manager from each trout spawning habitat (Holey et al. 1995; of the states with political jurisdiction on a Eshenroder et al. 1995b). Primary rehabilita- Great Lake (Dochoda 1999). Native Ameri- tion zones surrounding the northern refuges can governments were not members of any in lakes Michigan and Huron were created in of the five lake committees during the early the 1985 Consent Decree where gill net fish- 1980s, but biologists from COTFMA did eries could target lake whitefish, but only un- participate in development of the lake trout der restricted conditions. The 1985 Consent rehabilitation plans on lakes Superior, Hu- Decree established only a few specific pro- ron, and Michigan. Consequently the lake tections for lake whitefish that included a sea- committees served to help coordinate man- sonal spawning closure, minimum mesh size agement of lake trout, and indirectly man- requirements, and a minimum length limit for agement of lake whitefish in the three upper the commercial sale of lake whitefish. Large- Great Lakes. These plans included refuges, mesh gill-net fishing for lake whitefish was Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 127 essentially permitted in only a small amount ceive reports from staff and from tribal, fed- of the total 1836 ceded waters by the 1985 eral, and state biologists to develop methods Consent Decree to promote recovery of lake of reducing harvests when necessary. The five trout populations. Lake trout rehabilitation tribes empowered CORA and GLRC with a was deferred in areas open to gill-net fishing four-step process to resolve disputes that may in each lake. arise over decisions made or proposed chang- The 2000 Consent Decree differed from es that were not implemented (United States the 1985 Decree in that it mandated an al- v. Michigan 2000, Appendix A). location of fish resources between the tribes A Technical Fishery Review Committee and State of Michigan, specifically described (TFRC) established by the 1985 Consent De- how lake whitefish populations would be cree was made up of biologists representing managed, increased protection for lake trout, COTFMA, USFWS, and MiDNR. The TFRC and expanded the tribal-only zones. Parties to was responsible for compiling an annual re- the 2000 Consent Decree agreed that the to- port outlining the status of fish stocks in the tal available fish harvest from the 1836 ceded 1836 ceded waters including total allowable waters was to be divided equally between the catch (TAC) levels for lake whitefish in each tribes and state, but that the allocation did management unit (Ebener et al. 2005). Total not have to be divided equally among spe- allowable catches of lake whitefish were es- cies. Instead, the tribes received 100% of the timated annually during 1986–1991 (TFRC available lake whitefish in 13 of the 18 man- 1992), but these harvest levels were never agement units. In the other five management enforced. The TFRC status reports and TAC units lake whitefish stocks were shared with estimates were provided to a five member the state-licensed fishery, but COTFMA- Executive Council that was responsible for member tribes were allocated 55–90% of the implementation of the 1985 Consent Decree available lake whitefish TAC. and resolving disputes arising from the agree- COTFMA was reorganized as part of the ment. 2000 Consent Decree into CORA because The 2000 Consent Decree reorganized two newly recognized tribal governments the TFRC into the Technical Fisheries Com- were signatory to the settlement. CORA was mittee (TFC) that was to be the primary body designed to oversee biological matters, fish- for consultation and collaboration on bio- ery enhancement, law enforcement, judicial, logical issues. Among other charges, the TFC and public information to ensure proper man- was to update fish population models to be agement of tribal commercial and subsistence used for harvest limits and act as a forum for fisheries and cooperative management with development and review of harvest and ef- federal, state, and provincial agencies. The fort limits. The TFC also reviews other bio- Great Lakes Resource Committee (GLRC) logical issues, monitors harvests, coordinates was established under the CORA charter to research, monitoring, and assessment activi- serve as the inter-tribal management body for ties of the parties, and facilitates exchange the treaty fishery in the Great Lakes. The role of information. The Modeling Subcommit- of GLRC is to: 1) develop protocols for the tee (MSC) was created under the auspices of management, preservation, and enhancement the TFC to implement statistical catch-at-age of all species and habitats; 2) promulgate analysis of lake whitefish in both the shared regulations, including emergency orders; and tribal zones. 3) coordinate law enforcement programs of In the shared management units the yield member tribes; 4) participate in inter-tribal, of lake whitefish was to be regulated by the interstate, and international bodies; and 5) re- parties in accordance with harvest limits that 128 Ebener et al. were based on allowing a maximum of 65% willingness of these individuals to exchange total annual mortality on whitefish (Ebener et data and ideas has created an atmosphere of al. 2005). The harvest limits were to be deter- cooperation that bridges philosophical dif- mined on an annual basis, but with a lag of ferences in management. A Law Enforce- one year for each upcoming year: i.e. 2007 ment Committee was also created by both TACs are determined from data collected Consent Decrees, but primarily the 2000 through 2005. The TACs were to be based on Consent Decree, whereby officers from data collected from fisheries and appropriate CORA and MiDNR meet regularly to plan statistical and mathematical modeling tech- and coordinate annual enforcement effort, niques, and strictly enforced in shared zones. share information, and recommend regula- Enforcement of the TAC was established by tions for governing the tribal and state fish- maintaining a running sum of the percent de- eries. After the 1985 Consent Decree COT- viations between the previous years’ harvest FMA, now CORA, became a member of the limit for each party and the actual harvest GLFC lake Superior, Huron, and Michigan from a management unit for the same party. Lake Committees and Lake Technical Com- If in any year either the state or tribal harvest mittees, which furthered collaboration and produced a positive 25% deviation from their cooperation among tribal and state govern- respective harvest limit then management ments. Unfortunately, at the policy level of action was required. Management actions the Executive Committee resolution of out- included reducing a party’s harvest limit the standing issues among the parties remains following year by the amount of the over-har- elusive. vest and increasing the allocation of the other party by the same amount. The party exceed- Lake Superior Ojibway ing the harvest limit also had to take manage- ment action in the following year to keep its Besides the five CORA-member tribes, harvest within the allocation limit after the there are eight other Native American gov- transfer of harvest to the other party (United ernments that license commercial fisheries States v. Michigan 2000). for lake whitefish in Lake Superior. In Cana- The two Consent Decrees essentially da, the Fort William, Pays Plat, Pic River, and created a governance structure whereby Batchewana governments license members CORA, MiDNR, USFWS, and individual to fish commercially but only Batchewana tribal governments could meet regularly fishes without an OMNR communal fishing to share data, estimate harvest limits, and license or ITQ for lake whitefish. The Grand cooperatively manage lake whitefish and Portage, Red Cliff, Bad River, and Keweenaw other fish resources in the 1836 ceded wa- Bay governments license commercial fisher- ters. The 2000 Consent Decree established ies in the U.S. The Grand Portage, Red Cliff, timelines for submitting annual harvest and Bad River tribes have reached settle- limits for lake whitefish to the parties for ments with state governments that address al- their evaluation and approval. As a conse- location and resource management, while the quence, timelines were also established by Keweenaw Bay tribe has not. The Red Cliff, the TFC for exchange of fishery yield and Bad River, and Keweenaw Bay tribes jointly effort and biological data among the biolo- manage an inter-tribal fishery in Michigan gists charged with estimating annual har- waters of Lake Superior independent of the vest limits. Very good relations have been state of Michigan. All these Native American established between biologists from each tribes except Batchewana fish exclusively in of the parties at the technical level and the Lake Superior. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 129 The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wild- Regulations developed to govern the in- life Commission (GLIFWC) was formed ter-tribal fishery in the 1842 ceded waters in 1984 as an inter-tribal, co-management (see Brown et al. 1999) of central and west- agency exercising authority delegated by its ern Michigan waters of Lake Superior are eleven member tribes, to ensure off-reserva- primarily focused on protecting lake trout tion harvests while simultaneously protect- and not lake whitefish. The Keweenaw Bay, ing resources (www.glifwc.org). The Red Red Cliff, and Bad River governments initi- Cliff, Bad River, and Keweenaw Bay tribes ated an inter-tribal fishing agreement to man- are members of GLIFWC’s Lake Commit- age a commercial fishery in Michigan waters tee, which coordinates fishery management of Lake Superior ceded by the treaty of 1842 activities on Lake Superior. Unlike CORA (management units S-01 to S-05 in Figure that has direct management responsibility 2). This inter-tribal fishery began in 1984 for the tribal fishery in the 1836 ceded wa- after the federal court “Voight Decision” in ters, GLIFWC has no specific management 1983 reaffirmed treaty reserved fishing rights responsibility; it only provides the forum for in these waters (Ebener et al. 1985). Since and assists member tribes with coordination then there has been no negotiated settlement activities among themselves. GLIFWC does with the state of Michigan. Prior to 1984 provide scientific, enforcement, legal and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community had policy, public information, and management been fishing Lake Superior waters within its expertise to it member tribes. reservation boundaries based on the 1965 The most interesting aspect of the Native “Jondreau Decision” that basically laid the American commercial fisheries outside the groundwork for much of the present-day 1836 ceded waters of Lake Superior is that treaty fishing activities in U.S. waters of the there are few, if any, management strategies Great Lakes (Doherty 1990). directly developed to protect lake whitefish. Lake trout and their rehabilitation have Instead, the focus of management is directed been the primary concern in managing the at lake trout so lake whitefish populations are Michigan inter-tribal fishery that harvested basically managed as a by-product of lake between 87,000 and 379,000 kg of lake white- trout rehabilitation. The Grand Portage Band fish annually since 1986 (Ebener et al. 1985; reached a negotiated settlement with the state Ebener and Bronte 1986; Mattes et al. 2000). of Minnesota in 1988 that allowed unlimited When the fishery began in earnest in 1985 subsistence use of all fish species within res- each fisher was given a management unit- ervation boundaries of Lake Superior but re- specific lake trout quota and the number of stricted the commercial harvest of lake trout fishers from Bad River and Red Cliff was re- to a specific annual quota in the same waters. stricted. There were also limits on the amount There is very little harvest of lake whitefish gill net that could be fished and small refuges in the Grand Portage reservation waters and were established around important lake trout the tribe has no specific regulations that pro- spawning reefs during the fall. The individual tect them. The Batchewana fishery primarily quotas were in place to limit large-mesh gill targets lake whitefish in eastern Ontario wa- net effort because once a fisher reached their ters of Lake Superior. The Batchewana gov- management unit-specific quota, they were ernment has developed no regulations that required to cease fishing for lake whitefish. specifically protect lake whitefish and they The only regulation directed at lake whitefish continue to be at odds with the government was the minimum legal-length limit of 43 cm of Ontario over commercial fishery regula- TL and the spawning season closure of Oc- tion and management responsibilities. tober 31 through November 27. Today there 130 Ebener et al. are no ITQs for lake trout, rather each fisher the lake whitefish fishery in the Apostle -Is is permitted to have no more than 3,700 m of lands area. To ensure the lake trout quotas large-mesh gill net in the water at any time were not exceeded the agreement established and individual lake trout quotas have been an allowable effort regulation that was based abandoned in favor of management unit spe- upon the lake trout quota and the catch per cific-limits on lake trout, but not lake white- unit effort (CPUE) of lake trout observed fish. during onboard monitoring in three seasons Probably the most extreme example of the fishing year. Prior to each fishing year, of how the lake trout rehabilitation process commercial fishers from each tribe are noti- has structured modern-day fisheries for lake fied of their allocation of gill net effort (ex- whitefish has taken place in the state of Wis- pressed as total feet of net that can be fished). consin’s Apostle Islands area of Lake Supe- Individual fishing effort allocations could be rior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s “Gur- transferred among fishers if the tribe was pro- noe Decision” in 1972 found that reservation vided written documentation of the transfer boundaries created by the treaty of 1854 ex- and the tribal biologist approved the transfer. tend into Lake Superior, thus guaranteeing Essentially the permissible amount of large- the Red Cliff tribe’s right to fish commercial- mesh gill net effort was inversely related to ly in those waters adjacent to the reservation the amount of lake trout quota each fisher had (Hansen et al. 1995; Spangler 1997). In 1981 remaining during a season. the state of Wisconsin and Red Cliff tribe Each of the State-Tribal Lake Superior reached an agreement to limit the annual lake agreements supported the establishment of trout catch in the Apostle Islands (WI-2). The a Biological Committee. The Biological 1981 agreement established the Devils Island Committee’s primary responsibility is to es- Refuge to minimize fishing mortality on lake timate harvest limits for lake trout in WI-2, trout (Busiahn 1982), and the agreement cre- but they were also responsible for estimating ated numerous “restricted use areas.” Com- CPUE of lake trout and evaluating the statis- mercial fishing for lake whitefish in these -re tical bias and power of the on-board CPUE stricted use areas was prohibited altogether, monitoring program. Biologists and wardens or prohibited during certain seasons and at were required to estimate the average CPUE certain depths to both protect fish and reduce in each season that was used to adjust fish- conflicts between recreational anglers and ing effort in the following season. In the commercial fishermen. The Bad River tribe very recent 2006 State-Tribal Lake Superior began commercial fishing in the Apostle Is- Agreement the parties have requested the land areas in 1984 so a 10-year agreement Biological Committee to develop a statistical was reached between Red Cliff, Bad River, catch-at-age model for lake whitefish stocks. and the State of Wisconsin in 1986 to allo- The catch-at-age assessment may not be used cate lake trout resources (Hansen et al. 1995). to project harvest limits, but rather may be A third agreement among the three govern- used to determine the health of lake whitefish ments was reached in 1996 that maintained populations and sustainability of current har- the refuges and restricted areas, but also ad- vest levels. dressed enforcement, and joint monitoring of commercial catches by biological and law Saugeen Ojibway enforcement staff from the three agencies. The 1996 State-Tribal Lake Superior The 1990 “Sparrow Decision” by the Agreement and several amendments to it Canadian Supreme Court (Sparrow v. The produced considerable regulatory change to Queen 1990) was a landmark in the legal de- Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 131 velopment of Canadian aboriginal rights to insula and co-management of those popula- use fish resources of the Great Lakes even tions. In June 2000 an interim allocation and though the decision had nothing to do with co-management agreement was achieved. the Great Lakes or lake whitefish. The Spar- The Agreement, among other things, sets out row Decision was a landmark because it protocols for how data would be exchanged presented the first occasion for the Supreme between the First Nations and OMNR, how Court of Canada to explore the meaning of TACs would be calculated, and how breaches the aboriginal rights provision of Canada’s of the Agreement would be dealt with. A sec- new constitution that was created in 1982 ond 5-year agreement was recently reached (Jannetta 1991). Sparrow laid the groundwork between the parties in 2005. for aboriginal and treaty rights and allocation The 2005 Co-management Agreement of fish resources in Canadian waters of the allocated all the lake whitefish in the area Great Lakes in the same way that Jondreau, around the Bruce Peninsula to the Saugeen Gurnoe, and Fox did in U.S. waters. Ojibway. Under the terms of the 2005 agree- An important component of Sparrow was ment the Saugeen Ojibway will be respon- how allocation and regulation occur. Fish are sible for designating community fishers and first allocated to the spawning population. If monitoring the harvest through commercial after the spawning target has been met and catch sampling. All assessment data collected there is room for harvest, aboriginal food by the Saugeen Ojibway and OMNR will be needs must be met. The nonaboriginal com- shared through a joint bio-technical commit- mercial fishery is allocated some harvest af- tee that makes recommendations on safe har- ter spawning and aboriginal food needs have vest levels. The First Nations agreed not to been met. Recreational fishing is the last use large-mesh gill nets in certain bays along group to be allocated a harvest. The mirror the Georgian Bay side of the Bruce Peninsula, image occurs when regulation is to be applied although they maintain the right to do so. The to the fishery harvest; the first to be regulated agreement establishes a total allowable catch is the recreational fishery and the last fishery of lake whitefish by the Saugeen Ojibway in to be regulated is the aboriginal fishery. an open access large-mesh gill-net fishery Following the Sparrow Decision an On- with no ITQs. There are no seasonal closures tario Court ruled in 1993 that members of the of the fishery to accommodate spawning, and Saugeen Ojibway have a well-established there are no minimum length limits or mesh right to fish commercially under the treaties size requirements imposed on the Saugeen of 1836, 1854, and 1862, and existing OMNR fishery. Most of the Saugeen harvest is con- quotas infringe upon that right. The Ontario centrated in the fall using small boats fished Court ruling gave a much higher priority to close to shore when lake whitefish are - ag a lake whitefish fishery to the Chippewas of gregated in shallow water to spawn. Ojibway Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen people have fished in this manner for thou- First Nation, collectively known as Saugeen sands of years (Kinietz 1965) so the Saugeen Ojibway, that live along the eastern shores of Ojibway view the co-management agreement Lake Huron on the Bruce Peninsula (Figure 2) as recognizing their traditional knowledge than to the provincial-licensed fishery. Since for managing the lake whitefish fishery. the Sparrow Decision and the Ontario Court The 2005 Co-management agreement ruling the Saugeen Ojibway and the Province also recommended using Decision Analysis of Ontario attempted on numerous occasions and Adaptive Management (DAAM) as a to reach an agreement over allocation of lake strategy for managing the lake whitefish fish- whitefish populations around the Bruce Pen- ery. DAAM is a method of evaluating fishery 132 Ebener et al. management options that explicitly incorpo- methods for assessing lake whitefish popula- rates uncertainty into decision making. In the tions (AOFRC 2003). In 2003 the Union of case of the 2005 Co-management Agreement Ontario Indians and the province of Ontario DAAM may be used to evaluate the effect on signed a memorandum of understanding to lake whitefish populations and the fishery of establish an Anishinbabek Ontario Resources implementing varying levels of total allow- Management Council to provide recommen- able catch. dations to the Minister of Natural Resources and Grand Council Chief on how to manage Provincial-First Nation Cooperation natural resources affecting First Nations in Ontario. The agreement has allowed discus- Several formal partnerships have been sions between OMNR and First Nations over established between the Province of Ontario fish and wildlife, enforcement policy, forest- and other First Nations to foster genuine in- ry, land, and waterpower management. terest in ensuring a sustainable resource of lake whitefish and other species. One exam- Recommendations for the Future ple was in 1993 when the Union of Ontario Indians and the Province of Ontario signed Harvest management the Anishinabek/Ontario Conservation and Fishing Agreement that ultimately created Kratzer et al. (2007) and Wright and Eb- the Anishinabeck/Ontario Fisheries Resource ener (2007) both recommended that fishery Center (AOFRC) in 1995. AORFC was to managers needed to recognize that the car- act as an independent center of excellence rying capacity for lake whitefish has been for fisheries assessment and management, lowered in the Great Lakes because of the recognized and trusted by First Nations, gov- proliferation of dreissenid mussels, loss of ernments, and all users of fisheries resources Diporeia spp., and reductions in nutrient (AOFRC 2003). The AORFC reports on stock loading, particularly of phosphorus, to lakes status, evaluates stresses on fish populations Michigan, Huron, and Ontario (Madenjian and habitats, offers management recommen- et al. 2002; Mills et al. 2005; Dobiesz et al. dations, and facilitates information sharing 2005). Kratzer et al. (2007) further recom- and participation principally among Ontario mended fishery managers implement con- First Nations and OMNR to promote sus- servative harvest strategies in the future that tainable fisheries and resolve conflict. The protect the viability of lake whitefish stocks AOFRC integrates traditional knowledge of at the new lower productive capacity. fishery resources by the First Nations with We believe that decades of regulatory modern western science. A board of directors change through 2006 have already produced made up of commercial fishers, researchers, conservative harvest management strategies tourism and resource managers, and academ- for lake whitefish. We doubt that the fishery ic leaders oversees the AOFRC and seeks can sustain more conservative management funds for its operation through partnership policies given the poor economic condition agreements with external agencies such as of the fishery, low wholesale market prices, OMNR, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund- and reduced productivity of the lakes, and ing Corporation, and the federal government. reduced catchability of lake whitefish due In 2003 AOFRC staff embarked on a 3-year to the effects of dreissenid mussels. Instead, study to assess the status of lake whitefish agencies should be more flexible and objec- in specific Ontario waters of lakes Huron tive and work cooperatively with the indus- and Superior that will also develop standard try to adopt regulations that give the fishery Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 133 flexibility to operate in a global economy and Marketing constantly changing environment, while min- imizing bycatch. The new regulation changes The commercial lake whitefish fishery implemented in Wisconsin in 2006 with the on the Great Lakes must continue to undergo addition of a commercial “fleet” license are a fundamental change to maintain the long- a good example of the flexibility that will be term viability of the industry. Poor market required to sustain a viable fishery for lake prices, the need for enhanced product quality whitefish. controls, loss of traditional markets, interna- Recent application of statistical catch- tional relations among governments, foreign at-age stock assessments to lake whitefish competition, changes in regulatory require- have provided a very useful tool for assess- ments, ecological change, and fishery popu- ing their absolute abundance, mortality, and lation dynamics have impacted the market- for projecting yield (Bence and Ebener 2002; ability and competitiveness of Great Lakes Ebener et al. 2005; Belore et al. 2006). This lake whitefish. To date, the response of the “state of the art” methodology is being ap- industry has been to invest in large freezer plied on nearly every Great Lake and it has space to hold fish in the fall so as to smooth even been recognized in negotiated settle- out the supply to the metropolitan areas dur- ments between state and Native American ing the winter when supplies of fresh fish are governments. While catch-at-age stock as- low. To stabilize Great Lakes lake whitefish sessments have advanced our understanding product flow into the marketplace, and there- of lake whitefish population dynamics, they by prevent price drops due to glutted markets, are not without problems. In particular, the it is imperative for commercial fishers to im- variations in reproduction over the last de- prove handling of fresh caught lake whitefish cade and substantial declines in growth have and use appropriate freezer storage practices complicated the estimation of recruitment to to ensure the highest quality product. the fishery, gear selectivity, and catchability For the Great Lakes commercial lake in the catch-at-age assessments (Belore et whitefish fishing industry to survive, it is al. 2006). If catch-at-age assessments are to critical that fishers and buyers, in conjunc- be the standard for estimating harvest limits tion with governments, develop a marketing of lake whitefish, then future stock assess- strategy that capitalizes on the freshness and ments should focus on how best to charac- wholesomeness of the lake whitefish product, terize catchability, changing gear selectivity, including product positioning and conduits to and levels of recruitment to the fishery. The move this product to consumers. Michigan Quantitative Fishery Center at Michigan Sea Grant has initiated such a project in the State University (QFC http://qfc.fw.msu. State of Michigan in partnership with fishery edu) should provide the expertise necessary stakeholders and funding from the National to make catch-at-age assessments a more vi- Sea Grant Office. Objectives of the Sea Grant able tool for fishery managers. The Center initiative are to assess present markets and is funded by the university as well as by the identify new ones, enhance consumer aware- states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. ness of lake whitefish, improve quality con- This cooperative venture will be necessary trol and product consistency, differentiate for estimating harvest levels of lake white- Great Lakes lake whitefish from inland lake fish and allocating those harvests since most whitefish, develop value added products, and Great Lakes fishery agencies do not possess enhance co-operative initiatives among dis- the expertise or funds to commit to this type parate segments of the commercial fishing of analysis. industry. Stakeholders involved in the Sea

134 Ebener et al. Grant initiative include state- and tribal-li- The need for international governance censed commercial fishers, state and tribal regulators, and Great Lakes basin processors. There currently is no international gover- Thus far the project has succeeded in bring- nance of lake whitefish fisheries primarily -be ing all segments of Michigan’s commercial cause management agencies have larger fish fishery together for the first time to discuss to fry, so to speak. Lake whitefish is of little their common welfare and generate a con- interest to recreational anglers who spend sensus action plan. A newly formed industry billions of dollars and millions of hours fish- steering committee has developed a project ing the Great Lakes (Bence and Smith 1999). action plan to create marketing opportuni- Since the 1960s many agencies, but not all, ties. Among the project efforts have been have spent more time minimizing the size of development a quality assurance certification the commercial fishery than promoting it be- guideline, consumer product testing, creation cause recreational fishing is believed to pro- of marketing tools, development of a profes- vide larger economic benefits to society than sional web site, standard brand/quality as- commercial fishing (Brege and Kevern 1978; surance labeling, and future participation at Legault et al. 1978; Bence and Smith 1999; culinary chef and restaurant association con- Brown et al. 1999). State and provincial man- ferences. agement agencies have focused a tremendous The GLIFWC is coordinating another amount of their human and financial resourc- Great Lakes lake whitefish marketing effort. es managing and promoting recreational The Lake Superior Chippewa Fish Marketing fisheries for introduced Pacific salmon,- re and Development initiative will assist tribally habilitating populations of indigenous lake licensed fishers to process and sell high qual- trout, for example, and providing an alloca- ity products made by member-tribes who fish tion of fishery resources to Native American on Lake Superior. GLIFWC is making exten- governments. Licensing fees collected by the sive use of “product demonstrations” and pro- states, for example Michigan, are not nearly motions of products in target market commu- sufficient to fund the management of lake nities to build a Lake Superior lake whitefish whitefish in this era of user pay philosophy; market brand and get consumers to commit thus other funding sources, principally recre- to making regular purchases at tribal-member ational fishing and hunting license fees sub- owned and operated fish processing locations sidize most lake whitefish management by and tribal owned grocery stores. GLIFWC is the states. There is a reluctance to increase supporting tribal entrepreneurs in marketing reliance on these recreational funds for man- fish through tribal bulk purchases for tribal aging commercial fisheries and general tax and business enterprise consumption such as dollars are seldom made available by state food services, restaurants, and casino dining. legislatures. They are also assisting tribal entrepreneurs in The biggest challenge to managing lake co-marketing with tourism promotion event whitefish populations will continue to be organizers at the tribal, local, and regional introductions of aquatic plants and animals level to promote Lake Superior lake whitefish from outside the Great Lakes basin. Cer- sales. GLIFWC will continue to partner with tainly commercial fishing reduced abundance the Michigan Sea Grant Great Lakes lake of lake whitefish populations, but habitat whitefish-marketing project to help protect, destruction, and invasive species were the promote, and preserve a major Native Ameri- stresses that pushed their populations to the can community industry that is under assault brink of extinction in the 1960s and early by cheap foreign imports. 1970s. Favorable environmental conditions,

Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 135 control of sea lampreys, and reductions in management agencies within the lake com- abundance of invasive species were respon- mittee structure of the GLFC have certainly sible for the recovery of lake whitefish popu- fostered recovery and influenced manage- lations (Ebener 1997; Bunnell et al. 2006). ment of lake whitefish populations (Ebener Commercial yields of lake whitefish since 1997). The forum provided by GLFC may be the late 1980s have been greater and more a place for international governance of lake sustained than any other time in the last 100 whitefish populations. Fish community ob- years even though most fishing effort is di- jectives for the Great Lakes developed under rected at them and the effort occurs in smaller the GLFC’s coordination umbrella certainly spatial areas than at any other time in recent include lake whitefish. In addition, there has history. Both the U.S. and Canadian govern- been considerably more research on lake ments must do a better job at stopping the whitefish funded and coordinated recently by flow of invasive species into the Great Lakes the GLFC because the species has become a for the lake whitefish, and other fisheries, to barometer for assessing food web disruptions be viable and sustainable. caused by dreissenid mussels (Mohr and Na- The International Joint Commission was lepa 2005; Belore et al. 2006). Considering created by the U.S. and Canadian federal that lake whitefish fisheries have presented governments under the 1909 Boundary Wa- some of the largest obstacles for promoting ters Treaty to resolve disputes between the lake trout rehabilitation, at least from the two countries on the Great Lakes and to pur- state and provincial points of view, it seems sue the common good of both countries as reasonable that coordinated management an independent and objective advisor to the of lake whitefish populations and fisheries two governments. Specifically, the Interna- should occur at the lake committee level. tional Joint Commission: 1) rules upon ap- There are six areas in the Great Lakes plications for projects affecting Great Lakes where development of inter-jurisdictional waters and may regulate the operation of and international governance of lake white- these projects; 2) assists the two countries in fish could occur within the GLFC structure. the protection of the environment, including These areas are where the Great Lakes tran- the implementation of the Great Lakes Wa- sition to one another and reproductively iso- ter Quality Agreement and the improvement lated stocks cross both international and state of air quality; and, 3) alerts the governments boundaries. These areas are: Whitefish Bay, to emerging issues along the boundary that Lake Superior; the northeastern and extreme may give rise to bilateral disputes. We be- southern main basin of Lake Huron; western lieve the International Joint Commission Lake Erie including the Detroit River; eastern and the two federal governments have failed Lake Ontario in the Kingston Basin; and the to protect Great Lakes waters from invasive Green Bay and the Door County area of Lake species and we recommend that the current Michigan that share the North-Moonlight Bay management strategy for stopping invasive and Big Bay de Noc stocks of lake whitefish species should be abandoned immediately (Ebener and Copes 1985). Initially, Rybicki in favor of a new policy and legislation that and Schneeberger (1990) recommended that aggressively tries to stop any new introduc- the states of Wisconsin and Michigan should tions to the Great Lakes. coordinate management of lake whitefish In an indirect way there has been inter- in Green Bay because the fisheries in both national governance of lake whitefish popu- states shared stocks. Subsequently, WiDNR lations. Stocking of trout and salmon and proposed that the quotas they developed for rehabilitation of lake trout coordinated by Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan should 136 Ebener et al. be applied to the fishery in Michigan waters ography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great of Green Bay because they shared stocks. Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Significant disagreements developed be- Sciences 38:1539–1561. Baldwin, N. A., R. W. Saalfeld, M. R. Dochoda, H. J. tween WiDNR, MiDNR, and CORA over Buettner, and R. L. Eshenroder. 2000. Commer- coordinated management of these stocks that cial fish production in the Great Lakes 1867–2000. ultimately resulted in an external review of Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Available: the stock structure information from the area. www.glfc.org/databases/commercial/commerc. The review took place under the auspices of asp. (September 2000). Barbiero, R. P., M. L. Tuchman, and E. S. Millard. the Lake Michigan Committee of GLFC, but 2006. Post-dreissenid increases in transparency to date there has been no resolution. The de- during summer stratification in the offshore wa- bate over management of lake whitefish in ters of Lake Ontario: is a reduction in whiting Green Bay illustrates that international and events the cause? Journal of Great Lakes Research inter-jurisdictional debates involving Great 32:131–141. Lakes shared fish stocks will not be easily Beauchamp, K. C., N. C. Collins, and B. A. Henderson. 2004. Covariation of growth and maturation of resolved. lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Journal of Great Lakes Research 30:451–460. Acknowledgments Beeton, A. M. 1965. Eutrophication of the St. Law- rence Great Lakes. Limnology and Oceangraphy We thank Matt Symbal, Andy Cook, Rog- 10:240–254. Belore, M., J. Black, S. Chong, A. Cottrill, J. Hoyle, B. er Kenyon, Steve LaPan, Gene Mensch, Mike Locke, L. Mohr, and B. Morrison. 2006. Review Seider, Seth Moore, and Ken Cullis for pro- of assessment programs for Great Lakes whitefish. viding us information that helped in writing Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2006 Project this chapter. Two anonymous reviews helped Completion Report, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Avail- improve the chapter. We would like to dedi- able: www.glfc.org/research/reports/Belore.pdf cate this chapter to Jim Reckahn, John Col- Bence, J. R., and K. D. Smith. 1999. An overview of recreational fisheries of the Great Lakes. Pages lins, Fred Copes, John Casselman, and Jack 259–306 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Christie for all the years they spent studying Great Lakes fisheries policy and management, lake whitefish in the Great Lakes. We are for- Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, ever grateful to the many commercial fishers Michigan. whose opinions and fishing practices influ- Bence, J. R., and M. P. Ebener, editors. 2002. Summary status of lake trout and lake whitefish populations enced our careers and ways of thinking about in the 1836 treaty-ceded waters of lakes Superior, lake whitefish. Huron and Michigan in 2000, with recommended yield and effort levels for 2001. Technical Fisher- References ies Committee, 1836 treaty-ceded waters of lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan. Michigan Depart- Adams, G. F., and D. P. Kolenosky. 1974. Out of the ment of Natural Resources, Charlevoix, Michi- water, Ontario freshwater fish industry. Ontario gan. Ministry of Natural Resources, Commercial Fish Bernatchez, L. 2005. On the role of natural selection in and Fur Division, Division of Fish and Wildlife. promoting population divergence in lake whitefish Ontario, Canada. (Coregonus clupeaformis): relevance for popula- Anonymous. 2005. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corpo- tion management in the Great Lakes. Pages 21–46 ration 2004–2005 Annual Report. Freshwater Fish in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceed- Marketing Corporation, Winnipeg, Manitoba. ings of a workshop on the dynamics of lake white- AOFRC (Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource fish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod Center). 2003. Update 2003. Anishinabek On- Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes tario Fisheries Resource Center, Fisheries News Fisheries Commission Technical Report No. 21, 4(1):6. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bailey, R. M., and G. R. Smith. 1981. Origin and ge- Bernatchez, L., F. Colombani, and J. J. Dodson. 1991. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 137 Phylogenetic relationship among the subfamily Resurgence of lake whitefish, Coregonus clupea- Coregoninae as revealed by mitochondrial DNR formis, in Lake Ontario in the 1980s. Great Lakes restriction analysis. Journal of Fish Biology 39 Research Review 2(2):20–28. (Supplement A):283–290. Chiarappa, M. J., and K. M. Szylvian. 2003. Fish for Berst, A. H., and G. R. Spangler. 1973. Lake Huron: ef- all: an oral history of multiple claims and divided fects of exploitation, introductions, and eutrophi- sentiment on Lake Michigan. Michigan State Uni- cation on the salmonid community. Great Lakes versity Press, East Lansing, Michigan. Fishery Commission, Technical Report No. 21. Christie, W. J. 1973. A review of the changes in the fish Bogue, M. B. 2000. Fishing the Great Lakes: an envi- species composition of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes ronmental history, 1783–1933. University of Wis- Fishery Commission, Technical Report No. 23, consin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Brege, D. A., and N. R. Kevern. 1978. Michigan com- Christie, W. J., and H. A. Regier. 1971. Temperature as mercial fishing regulations: a summary of Public a major factor influencing reproductive success of Acts and Conservation Commission Orders, 1865 fish—two examples. Contribution No. 71:4, Re - through 1975. Michigan Sea Grant Program, Ref- search Branch, Ontario Department of Lands and erence Report MICHU-SG-78–605. Michigan Forests, Maple, Ontario. State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Clary, J. R. 1962. A comparison of two populations of Brown, R. W., and W. W. Taylor. 1992. Effects of egg whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis (Mitchell), in composition and prey density on the larval growth the Munising Bay area of Lake Superior. Master’s and survival of lake whitefish (Coregonus clu- thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, peaformis, Mitchell). Journal of Fish Biology Michigan. 40:381–394. Cleland, C. E. 1982. The inland shore fishery of the Brown, R. W., W. W. Taylor, and R. A. Assel. 1993. northern Great Lakes: its development and impor- Factors affecting the recruitment of lake whitefish tance in prehistory. Society for American Archae- in two areas of northern Lake Michigan. Journal ology 47:761–784. of Great Lakes Research 19:418–428. Coberly, C. E., and R. M. Horrall. 1980. Fish spawning Brown, R., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great grounds in Wisconsin waters of the Great Lakes. Lakes commercial fisheries: historical overview University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute WIS- and prognosis for the future. Pages 307–354 in W. SG-80-235, University of Wisconsin-Madison, W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes Madison, Wisconsin. fisheries policy and management. Michigan State Coberly, C. E., and R. M. Horrall. 1982. A strategy for University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. re-establishing self-sustaining lake trout stocks in Budd, J. 1957. Movements of tagged whitefish in north- Illinois waters of Lake Michigan. Illinois Coastal ern Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. Transactions Zone Management Development Project, Illinois of the American Fisheries Society 86:128–134. Department of Conservation Report Number 42, Busiahn, T. R. 1982. Abundance, origin, and age com- Champaign, Illinois. position of pre-recruit lake trout near Devils Is- Colby, P. J., G. R. Spangler, D. A. Hurley, and A. M. land, Lake Superior, 1982. Red Cliff Tribal Coun- McCombie. 1972. Effects of eutrophication on cil, Red Cliff Fisheries Department, Assessment salmonid communities in oligotrophic lakes. Jour- Report 82–1, Red Cliff, Wisconsin. nal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bunnell, D. B., C. P. Madenjian, and R. M. Claramunt. 29:975–983. 2006. Long-term changes in the Lake Michigan Cook, H. A., T. B. Johnson, B. Locke, and B. J. Mor- fish community following the reduction of exotic rison. 2005. Status of lake whitefish (Coregonus alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Canadian Journal clupeaformis) in Lake Erie. Pages 87–104 in L. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:2434–2446. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceedings Carney, T. 2006. Lake whitefish return to the Detroit of a workshop on the dynamics of lake whitefish River. Wood-N-Water News, July 2006. Imlay (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod Di- City, Michigan. poreia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fish- Casselman, J. M., J. J. Collins, E. J. Crossman, P. E. eries Commission Technical Report 66, Ann Ar- Ihssen, and G. R. Spangler. 1981. Lake whitefish bor, Michigan. (Coregonus clupeaformis) stocks of the Ontario Cucin, D., and H. A. Regier. 1965. Dynamics and ex- waters of Lake Huron. Canadian Journal of Fish- ploitation of lake whitefish in southern Georgian eries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1772–1789. Bay. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Casselman, J. M., D. M. Brown, and J. A. Hoyle. 1996. Canada 23:221–274. 138 Ebener et al. DesJardine, R. L., T. K. Gorenflo, R. N. Payne, and J. Michigan in 2004, with recommended yield and D. Schrouder. 1995. Fish-community objectives effort levels for 2005. Technical Fisheries Com- for Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fishery Commission mittee, 1836 treaty-ceded waters of lakes Supe- Special Publication 95–1, Ann Arbor, Michigan. rior, Huron and Michigan. Michigan Department Dobiesz, N. E., D. A. McLeish, R. L. Eshenroder, J. R. of Natural Resources, Charlevoix, Michigan. Bence, L. C. Mohr, B. A. Henderson, M. P. Eb- Ebener, M. P., and F. A. Copes. 1985. Population sta- ener, T. F. Nalepa, A. P. Woldt, J. E. Johnson, R. L. tistics, yield estimates, and management consid- Argyle, and J. C. Makarewicz. 2005. Ecology of erations for two lake whitefish stocks in Lake the Lake Huron fish community, 1970–1999. Ca- Michigan. North American Journal of Fisheries nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Management 5:435–448. 62:1432–1451. Ebener, M. P., and C. R. Bronte. 1986. Biological and Dochoda, M. R. 1999. Authorities, responsibilities, and commercial catch statistics from inter-tribal fish- arrangements for managing fish and fisheries in ing in Michigan waters of Lake Superior in 1985. the Great Lakes ecosystem. Pages 93–110 in W. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes Administrative Report 86–1, Odanah, Wisconsin. fisheries policy and management. Michigan State Ebener, M. P., and M. T. Arts. 2007. Whitefish natural University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. mortality coordination workshops. Great Lakes Doherty, R. 1990. Disputed waters: Native Americans Fishery Commission 2007 project completion re- & the Great Lakes fishery. The University Press of port. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Available: Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. www.glfc.org/research/reports/Ebener_natural- Dryer, W. R. 1964. Movements, growth, and rate of re- mortality.html. (March 2007). capture of whitefish tagged in the Apostle Islands Ebener, M. P., C. R. Bronte, and T. R. Busiahn. 1985. area of Lake Superior. United States Fish and Biological and commercial catch statistics from Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 63:611–618. inter-tribal assessment fishing in western Michi- Duffy, W. G., and T. R. Batterson. 1987. The St. Mary’s gan waters, and initial recommendations for man- River, Michigan: an ecological profile. U.S. De- agement of the fishery. Great Lakes Indian Fish partment of Interior, United States Fish and Wild- and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin. life Service, Biological Report 85(7.10), Washing- Ebener, M. P., J. R. Bence, K. R. Newman, and P. J. ton, D.C. Schneeberger. 2005. Application of statistical Ebener, M. P. 1990. Assessment and mark-recapture catch-at-age models to assess lake whitefish stocks of lake whitefish spawning stocks around the Ke- in the 1836 treaty-ceded waters of the upper Great weenaw Peninsula area of Lake Superior, 1987– Lakes. Pages 271–309 in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Na- 1990. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Com- lepa, editors. Proceedings of a workshop on the mission, Administrative Report 90–10, Odanah, dynamics of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeafor- Wisconsin. mis) and the amphipod Diporeia spp. in the Great Ebener, M. P. 1997. Recovery of lake whitefish popu- Lakes. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Techni- lations in the Great Lakes: a story of success- cal Report 66, Ann Arbor, Michigan. ful management and just plain luck. Fisheries Edsall, T. A., and J. E. Gannon. 1993. A profile of the St. 22(7):18–20. Marys River. MICHU-SG-93–700, Michigan Sea Ebener, M. P. 2006a. WFH-02 Detour stock. Pages 85– Grant College Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 88 in A. P. Woldt, S. P. Sitar, J. R. Bence, and M. Eshenroder, R. L., M. H. Holey, T. K. Gorenflo, and R. P. Ebener, editors. Summary status of lake trout D. Clark, Jr. 1995a. Fish-community objectives for and lake whitefish populations in the 1836 treaty- Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery Commission ceded waters of lakes Superior, Huron and Michi- Special Publication 95–3, Ann Arbor, Michigan. gan in 2004, with recommended yield and effort Eshenroder, R. L., N. R. Payne, J. E. Johnson, C. Bow- levels for 2005. Technical Fisheries Committee, en II, and M. P. Ebener. 1995b. Lake trout reha- 1836 treaty-ceded waters of lakes Superior, Huron bilitation in Lake Huron. Journal of Great Lakes and Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Research 21 (Supplement 1):108–127. Resources, Charlevoix, Michigan. Evans, D. O., and D. H. Loftus. 1987. Colonization of Ebener, M. P. 2006b. WFS-07 Tahquameon Bay stock. inland lakes in the Great Lakes region by rainbow Pages 73–76 in A. P. Woldt, S. P. Sitar, J. R. Bence, smelt, Osmerus mordax: their freshwater niche and M. P. Ebener, editors. Summary status of lake and effects on indigenous fishes. Canadian Journal trout and lake whitefish populations in the 1836 of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44 (Supplement treaty-ceded waters of lakes Superior, Huron and 2):249–266. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 139 Fleischer, G. W. 1992. Status of coregonine fishes in Holey, M. E. 1985. Summary of the incidental lake trout the Laurentian Great Lakes. Pages 247–259 in T. removal from Lake Michigan by the commercial N. Todd and M. Luczysnki, editors. Biology and chub and whitefish fisheries, 1977–1983. Pages management of coregonid fishes—1990, proceed - 71–73 in Minutes of the Lake Michigan Commit- ings of the fourth international symposium on tee Meeting, March 19, 1985. Great Lakes Fishery the biology and management of coregonid fishes, Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, August 19–23, Holey, M. E., R. W. Rybicki, G. W. Eck, E. H. Brown, 1990. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 39. Jr., J. E. Marsden, D. S. Lavis, M. L. Toneys, T. Freeberg, M. H., W. W. Taylor, and R. W. Brown. 1990. N. Trudeau, and R. M. Horrall. 1995. Progress to- Effect of egg and larval survival on year-class ward lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Michigan. strength of lake whitefish in Grand Traverse Bay, Journal of Great Lakes Research 21 (Supplement Lake Michigan. Transactions of the American 1):128–151. Fisheries Society 119:92–100. Horns, W. H., C. R. Bronte, T. R. Busiahn, M. P. Eb- Gallinat, M. P., H. H. Ngu, and J. D. Shively. 1997. ener, R. L. Eshenroder, T. Gorenflo, N. Kmiecik, Short-term survival of lake trout released from W. Mattes, J. W. Peck, M. Petzold, and D. R. Sch- commercial gill nets in Lake Superior. North reiner. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake American Journal of Fisheries Management Superior. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Spe- 17:136–140. cial Publication 03–01, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Goodier, J. L. 1989. Fishermen on Canadian Lake Supe- Hoyle, J. A., T. Schaner, J. M. Casselman, and R. Der- rior: one hundred years. Inland Seas 45:284–306. mott. 1999. Changes in lake whitefish Coregonus( Goodyear, C. D., T. A. Edsall, D. M. Ormsby Dempsey, clupeaformis) stocks in eastern Lake Ontario fol- G. D. Moss, and P. E. Polanski. 1981. Atlas of lowing Dreissena mussel invasion. Great Lakes spawning and nursery areas of the Great Lakes. Research Review 4:5–10. United States Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/ Hoyle, J. A. 2005. Status of lake whitefish Coregonus( OBS-82–52, Washington, D.C. clupeaformis) in Lake Ontario and the response to Hansen, M. J. 1999. Lake trout in the Great Lakes: the disappearance of Diporeia spp. Pages 47–66 basinwide stock collapse and binational restora- in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceed- tion. Pages 417–454 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. ings of a workshop on the dynamics of lake white- Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy and fish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod management, Michigan State University Press, Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes East Lansing, Michigan. Fisheries Commission Technical Report 66, Ann Hansen, M. J., J. W. Peck, R. G. Schorfhaar, J. H. Sel- Arbor, Michigan. geby, D. R. Schreiner, S. T. Schram, B. L. Swan- Ihssen, P. E., D. O. Evans, W. J. Christie, J. A. Reck- son, W. R. MacCallum, M. K. Burnham-Curtis, G. ahn, and R. L. DesJardine. 1981. Life history, L. Curtis, J. W. Heinrich, and R. J. Young. 1995. morphology, and electrophoretic characteristics Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) populations in of five allopatric stocks of lake whitefish (Corego- Lake Superior and their restoration in 1959–1993. nus clupeaformis) in the Great Lakes region. Ca- Journal of Great Lakes Research 21 (Supplement nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1):152–175. 38:1790–1807. Hartman, W. L. 1973. Effects of exploitation, envi- Imhof, M., R. Leary, and H. E. Booke. 1980. Population ronmental changes, and new species on the fish stock structure of lake whitefish, Coregonus clu- habitats and resources of Lake Erie. Great Lakes peaformis, in northern Lake Michigan as assessed Fishery Commission Technical Report No. 22, by isozyme electrophoresis. Canadian Journal of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:783–793. Henderson, B. A., J. J. Collins, and J. A. Reckahn. Jacobsen, P. C., and W. W. Taylor. 1985. Simulation of 1983. Dynamics of an exploited population of harvest strategies for a fluctuating population of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake lake whitefish. North American Journal of Fisher- Huron. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic ies Management 5:537–546. Sciences 40:1556–1567. Jannetta, J. M. 1991. The constitutional status of na- Higgins, S. N., E. T. Howell, R. E. Hecky, S. J. Guild- tive hunting and fishing rights in Canada and the ford, and R. E. Smith. 2005. The wall of green: the United States: a comparative analysis. Native status of Cladophora glomerata on the northern American Studies Conference, Lake Superior shores of Lake Erie’s eastern basin, 1995–2002. State University, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31:547–563. October 25, 1991. 140 Ebener et al. Jensen, A. L. 1976. Assessment of the United States Lawler, G. H. 1965. Fluctuations in the success of year- lake whitefish Coregonus ( clupeaformis) fisher- classes of whitefish populations with special ref- ies of Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake erence to Lake Erie. Journal of the Fisheries Re- Huron. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of search Board of Canada 22:1197–1227. Canada 33:747–759. Lawrie, A. H., and J. F. Rahrer. 1972. Lake Superior: Jensen, A. L. 1981. Population regulation in lake white- effects of exploitation and introductions on the fish Coregonus clupeaformis. Journal of Fish Bi- salmonid community. Journal of the Fisheries Re- ology 19:557–573. search Board of Canada 29:765–776. Jensen, A. L. 1985. Relations among net reproductive Legault, J., T. Kuchenberg, and M. E. Sisulak. 1978. rate and life history parameters for lake whitefish Reflections in a tarnished mirror: the use and (Coregonus clupeaformis). Canadian Journal of abuse of the Great Lakes. Golden Glow Publish- Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:164–168. ing, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. Johnson, J. E., J. L. Jonas, and J. W. Peck. 2004a. Man- Lindsey, C. C. 1981. Stocks are chameleons: plasticity agement of commercial fisheries bycatch, with in gill rakers of coregonid fishes. Canadian Journal emphasis on lake trout fisheries of the upper Great of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1497–1506. Lakes. Michigan Department of Natural Resourc- Lindsey, C. C., J. W. Clayton, and W. G. Franzin. 1970. es, Fisheries Division Research Report Number Zoogeographic problems and protein variation 2070, Ann Arbor, Michigan. in the Coregonus clupeaformis whitefish species Johnson, J. E., M. P. Ebener, K. Gebhardt, and R. complex. Pages 127–147 in C. C. Lindsey and C. S. Bergstedt. 2004b. Comparison of catch and lake Woods, editors. Biology of coregonid fishes. Uni- trout bycatch in commercial trap nets and gill nets versity of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba. targeting lake whitefish in northern Lake Huron. Liu, K., and A. L. Jensen. 1993. Simulation of popula- Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fish- tion regulation in lake whitefish Coregonus clu- eries Division Research Report Number 2071, peaformis. Journal of the Fisheries Society of Tai- Ann Arbor, Michigan. wan 20(2):153–166. Kaups, M. 1984. Ojibwa fisheries on St. Louis River Loftus, D. H., and P. F. Hulsman. 1986. Predation on Minnesota: 1800–1835. Journal of Cultural Geog- larval lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) raphy 5:61–83. and lake herring (C. artedii) by adult rainbow Keller, M., and K. D. Smith. 1990. Introduction. Pages smelt (Osmerus mordax). Canadian Journal of 1–13 in M. Keller, K. D. Smith, and R. W. Rybicki, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:812–818. editors. Review of salmon and trout management Lozano, S. J., and J. V. Scharold. 2005. The status of in Lake Michigan. Michigan Department of Natu- Diporeia spp. in Lake Ontario, 1994–1997. Pages ral Resources, Fisheries Special Report No. 14, 233–245 in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Proceedings of a workshop on the dynamics of Kenyon, R. B. 1978. Growth changes in a population of lake whitefish Coregonus( clupeaformis) and the whitefish in Lake Erie. New York Fish and Game amphipod Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Journal 25(2):129–139. Lakes Fisheries Commission Technical Report 66, Kinietz, W. V. 1965. The Indians of the western Great Ann Arbor, Michigan. Lakes, 1615–1760. Ann Arbor Paperbacks, Uni- Madenjian, C. P., G. L. Fahnenstiel, T. H. Johengen, versity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. T. F. Nalepa, H. A. Vanderploeg, G. W. Fleischer, Koziol, A. M. 1982. Dynamics of lightly exploited P. J. Schneeberger, D. M. Benjamin, E. B. Smith, populations of the lake whitefish, Isle Royale J. R. Bence, E. S. Rutherford, D. S. Lavis, D. M. vicinity, Lake Superior. Michigan Department of Robertson, D. J. Jude, and M. P. Ebener. 2002. Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Dynamics of the Lake Michigan food web, 1970– Research Report No. 1911, Ann Arbor, Michi- 2000. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic gan. Sciences 59:736–753. Kratzer, J. F., W. W. Taylor, C. P. Ferreri, and M. P. Manny, B. A., T. A. Edsall, and E. Jaworski. 1988. The Ebener. 2007. Factors affecting growth of lake Detroit River, Michigan: an ecological profile. whitefish in the upper Laurentian Great Lakes. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biologi- Pages 459–470 in M. Jankun, P. Brzuzan, P. Hli- cal Report 85(7.17). wa, and M. Luczyski, editors. Biology and man- Mattes, W. P., M. P. Gallinat, and M. Donofrio. 2000. agement of coregonid fishes—2005. Advances in Biological and commercial catch statistics from Limnology 60, Schweizerbart Science Publish- the Chippewa inter-tribal gill net fishery within ers, Stuttgart, Germany. Michigan waters of Lake Superior in 1999. Great Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 141 Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Ad- Lakes Fisheries Commission Technical Report 66, ministrative Report 00–08, Odanah, Wisconsin. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mills, E. L., J. M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J. D. Fitzsi- Nute, G. L. 1926. The American Fur Company’s fishing mons, G. Gal, K. T. Holeck, J. A. Hoyle, O. E. enterprises on Lake Superior. Mississippi Valley Johannsson, B. F. Lantry, J. C. Makarewicz, Historical Review 12:483–503. E. S. Millard, I. F. Munawar, M. Munawar, R. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1974. O’Gorman, R. W. Owens, L. G. Rudstram, T. Preliminary analysis of goals and issues. First re- Schaner, and T. J. Stewart. 2005. A synthesis of port of the Federal-Provincial strategic planning ecological and fish-communithy changes in Lake for Ontario Fisheries. Ontario, 1970–2000. Great Lakes Fishery Com- OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1982. mission Technical Report 67, Ann Arbor, Michi- Report of the Committee on Modernizing On- gan. tario’s Commercial Fishery. Ontario Ministry of Milner, J. W. 1874. Report on the fisheries of the Great Natural Resources. Lakes: the result of inquiries prosecuted in 1871 Owens, R. W., R. O’Gorman, T. H. Eckert, B. F. Lantry, and 1872. Report of the U.S. Commissioner on and D. E. Dittman. 2005. Recovery and decline of Fish and Fisheries for 1872 and 1873, 2:1–78. lake whitefish in U. S. waters of eastern Lake On- Mohr, L. C., and M. P. Ebener. 2005a. Description of tario, 1980–2001. Pages 141–155 in L. C. Mohr the fisheries. Pages 19–26in M. P. Ebener, editor. and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceedings of a work- The state of Lake Huron in 1999. Great Lakes shop on the dynamics of lake whitefish (Coregonus Fishery Commission Special Publication 05–02, clupeaformis) and the amphipod Diporeia spp. in Ann Arbor, Michigan. the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fisheries Commis- Mohr, L. C., and M. P. Ebener. 2005b. Status of lake sion Technical Report 66, Ann Arbor, Michigan. whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake Hu- Patriarche, M. H. 1976. Biological basis for manage- ron. Pages 105–125 in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Na- ment of lake whitefish in the Michigan waters of lepa, editors. Proceedings of a workshop on the northern Lake Michigan. Michigan Department of dynamics of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeafor- Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Fisheries mis) and the amphipod Diporeia spp. in the Great Research Report No. 1838, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Lakes. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Techni- Peters, J. H. 1981. Commercial fishing in Lake- Hu cal Report 66, Ann Arbor, Michigan. ron, 1800 to 1915: the exploitation and decline of Mohr, L. C., and T. F. Nalepa, editors. 2005. Proceed- whitefish and lake trout. Master’s thesis, The Uni- ings of a workshop on the dynamics of lake white- versity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. fish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod Pothoven, S. A. 2005. Changes in lake whitefish diet in Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Lake Michigan, 1998–2001. Pages 127–140 in L. Fishery Commission Technical Report 66, Ann C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceedings of a Arbor, Michigan. workshop on the dynamics of lake whitefish Core( - Mohr, L. C., D. A. McLeish, M. Rawson, A. P. Lis- gonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod Diporeia kaukas, and S. R. Gile. 1997. Management, ex- spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fisheries Com- ploitation, and dynamics of lake whitefish (Core- mission Technical Report 66, Ann Arbor, Michigan. gonus clupeaformis) and lake trout (Salvelinus Pothoven, S. A., and T. F. Nalepa. 2006. Feeding ecology namaycush) stocks surrounding the Bruce Penin- of lake whitefish in Lake Huron. Journal of Great sula. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Lakes Research 32:489–501. Huron Management Unit Report 02–97, Owen Pothoven, S. A., T. F. Nalepa, P. J. Schneeberger, and S. B. Sound, Ontario. Brandt. 2001. Changes in diet and body condition of Nalepa, T. F., and D. W. Schloesser, editors. 1993. Ze- lake whitefish in southern Lake Michigan associated bra mussels: biology, impacts, and control. CRC with changes in benthos. North American Journal of Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Fisheries Management 21:876–883. Nalepa, T. F., D. L. Fanslow, and G. Messick. 2005. Reckahn, J. A. 1986. Long-term cyclical trends in growth Characteristics and potential causes of declin- of lake whitefish in South Bay, Lake Huron. Trans- ing Diporeia spp. populations in southern Lake actions of the American Fisheries Society 115:787– Michigan and Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. Pages 804. 157–188 in L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Reckahn, J. A. 1995. A graphical paradigm for the se- Proceedings of a workshop on the dynamics of quential reduction and spectacular rehabilitation of lake whitefish Coregonus( clupeaformis) and the the lake whitefish of Lake Huron. Pages 171–190 amphipod Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great in M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. Leach, editors. 142 Ebener et al. The Lake Huron ecosystem: ecology, fisheries and Smith, B. R., and J. J. Tibbles. 1980. Sea lamprey (Pet- management. Ecovision World Monograph Se- romyzon marinus) in lakes Huron, Michigan, and ries, SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936– Netherlands. 78. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci- Rybicki, R. W., and P. J. Schneeberger. 1990. Recent ences 37:1780–1801. history and management of the state-licensed Smith, G. R., and T. N. Todd. 1992. Morphological cla- commercial fishery for lake whitefish in Michigan distic study of coregonine fishes. Pages 479–490 waters of Lake Michigan. Michigan Department in T. N. Todd and M. Luczynski, editors. Biology of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisher- and management of coregonid fishes. Polskie Ar- ies Research Report No. 1960, Ann Arbor, Michi- chiwum Hydrobiologii 39. gan. Spangler, G. R. 1970. Factors of mortality in an exploit- Scheerer, P. D., and W. W. Taylor. 1985. Population dy- ed population of whitefish, Coregonus clupeafor- namics and stock differentiation of lake whitefish mis, in northern Lake Huron. Pages 515–529 in in northeastern Lake Michigan with implications C. C. Lindsey and C. S. Woods, editors. Biology for their management. North American Journal of of coregonid fishes. University of Manitoba Press, Fisheries Management 5:526–536. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Schneeberger, P. J., M. Ebener, M. Toneys, and P. Spangler, G. R. 1997. Treaty fisheries in the Upper Peeters. 2005. Status of lake whitefish (Coregonus Midwest. Water Resources Update, Universities clupeaformis) in Lake Michigan. Pages 67–86 in Council on Water Resources 107:54–64. L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa, editors. Proceedings Spangler, G. R., and C. C. Collins. 1980. Response of of a workshop on the dynamics of lake whitefish lake whitefish Coregonus ( clupeaformis) to the (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the amphipod Di- control of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in poreia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fish- Lake Huron. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and eries Commission Technical Report 66, Ann Ar- Aquatic Sciences 37:2309–2046. bor, Michigan. Spangler, G. R., and J. H. Peters. 1995. Fisheries of Schorfhaar, R. G., and J. W. Peck. 1993. Catch and Lake Huron: an opportunity for stewardship. mortality of non-target species in lake whitefish Pages 103–123 in M. Munawar, T. Edsall, and J. trap nets in Michigan waters of Lake Superior. Leach, editors. The Lake Huron ecosystem: ecol- Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fish- ogy, fisheries and management. Ecovision World eries Division, Research Report No. 1974, Ann Monograph Series. SPB Academic Publishing, Arbor, Michigan. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Schorfhaar, R. G., and P. J. Schneeberger. 1997. Com- Spangler, G. R., D. S. Robson, and H. A. Regier. 1980. mercial and sport fisheries for lake whitefish in Estimates of lamprey-induced mortality in white- Michigan waters of Lake Superior, 1983–96. fish, Coregonus clupeaformis. Canadian Journal Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fish- of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:2146–2150. eries Division, Research Report No. 2034, Ann Sparrow v. The Queen. 1990. Supreme Court of Cana- Arbor, Michigan. da, slip opinion, May 31, 1990. Selgeby, J. H., and M. H. Hoff. 1996. Seasonal bathy- Stott, W., T. N. Todd, and L. Kallemeyn. 2004. Ge- metric distributions of 16 fishes in Lake Superior, netic variability among lake whitefish from Isle 1958–75. United States Department of the Inte- Royale and the upper Great Lakes. Pages 51–60 rior, National Biological Service, Biological Sci- in O. Heikinheimo, P. Amundsen, H. Auvinen, D. ence Report 7. Brodaly, R. Eshenroder, A. Huusko, K. Mills, R. Smith, H. M. 1917. Report of the Commission of Fish- Muller, T. Todd, and I. Winfield, editors. Biology eries. Report of the U.S. Commissioner for Fisher- and management of coregonid fishes, proceed- ies for the fiscal year 1916 with appendixes. ings of the eighth international symposium on Smith, K. D. 1988. Evaluation of modifications to trap the biology and management of corgonid fishes, nets for reducing gilling in a commercial white- Rovaniemi, Finland, 26–29 August 2002. Annales fish fishery. Michigan Department of Natural Re- Zoologici Fennici 41, Helsinki, Finland. sources, Fisheries Research Report No. 1953, Ann Swanson, B. L., and D. V. Swedberg. 1980. Decline and Arbor, Michigan. recovery of the Lake Superior Gull Island Reef Smith, S. H. 1972. Factors of ecologic succession in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) population and oligotrophic fish communities of the Laurentian the role of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) pre- Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research dation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Board of Canada 29:717–730. Sciences 37:2074–2080. Management of Lake Whitefish Commercial Fisheries 143 Taylor, W. W., M. A. Smale, and R. W. Brown. 1992. United States v. Michigan. 1985. United States Dis- An evaluation of size versus age dependent matu- trict Court, Western District of Michigan, Case ration of lake whitefish stocks in the upper Great No. M-26–73CA. Lakes. Pages 269–277 in T. N. Todd, and M. United States v. Michigan. 2000. United States Dis- Luczynski, editors. Biology and management of trict Court, Western District of Michigan, South- coregonid fishes – 1990, proceedings of the fourth ern Division, Case No. 2:73 CV 26. international symposium on the biology and man- Van Oosten, J., R. Hile, and F. W. Jobes. 1946. The agement of coregonid fishes held in Quebec City, whitefish fishery of Lakes Huron and Michigan Quebec, Canada, August 19–23, 1990. Polskie Ar- with special reference to the deep-trap-net fish- chiwum Hydrobiologii 39. ery. United States Department of Interior, Fish- Taylor, W. W., M. A. Smale, and M. H. Freeberg. 1987. ery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service Biotical and abiotic determinants of lake white- 50:297–394. fish (Coregonus clupeaformis) recruitment in Walker, S. H., M. W. Prout, W. W. Taylor, and S. R. northeastern Lake Michigan. Canadian Journal of Winterstein. 1993. Population dynamics and Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44 (Supplement management of lake whitefish stocks in Grand 2):313–323. Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan. North American TFRC (Technical Fisheries Review Committee). 1981. Journal of Fisheries Management 13:73–85. Status of the fishery resource-1981. A report by Wells, L., and A. L. McLain. 1973. Lake Michigan: the Tripartite Technical Working Group on the as- man’s effects on native fish stocks and other sessment of major fish stocks in the treaty-ceded biotia. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Tech- waters of the upper Great Lakes: State of Michi- nical Report 20, Ann Arbor, Michigan. gan. Mimeo. Report United States Fish and Wild- Woldt, A. P., S. P. Sitar, J. R. Bence, and M. P. Eb- life Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan. ener, editors. 2006. Summary status of lake TFRC (Technical Fisheries Review Committee). 1992. trout and lake whitefish populations in the 1836 Status of the Fishery Resource – 1991. An assess- treaty-ceded waters of lakes Superior, Huron ment of lake trout and lake whitefish in treaty-ced- and Michigan in 2004, with recommended yield ed waters of the upper Great Lakes: State of Mich- and effort levels for 2005. Technical Fisheries igan. A Report by the Technical Fisheries Review Committee, 1836 treaty-ceded waters of lakes Committee on the Assessment of lake trout and Superior, Huron and Michigan. Michigan De- lake whitefish in waters of the upper Great Lakes partment of Natural Resources, Charlevoix, ceded in the Treaty of 1836, September 29, 1992. Michigan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Ar- Wright, G. M., and M. P. Ebener. 2007. Potential ef- bor, Michigan. fects of dietary lipid reduction on growth and Todd, T. N. 1996. Environmental modification of gill- reproduction of lake whitefish in northern Lake raker number in coregonine fishes. Pages 305–315 Michigan. Pages 311–330 in M. Jankun, P. Brzu- in R. Eckmann, A. Appenzeller, and R. Rosch, zan, P. Hliwa, and M. Luczyski, editors. Biolo- editors. Biology and management of coregonid gy and management of coregonid fishes—2005. fishes. Archives of Hydrobiology Special Issues Advances in Limnology 60, Schweizerbart Sci- Advances in Limnology 50. ence Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany.