Michigan.gov Home DNR Home Links Contact DNR DNR Mobile Apps Site Map 

### Search Fishing

> Angler Information

> Fisheries Management & Research Wildlife Action Plan Dams and Dam Removal Fish Disease Fish Ladders and Weirs Habitat Management Unit Marked and Tagged Fish Research Tribal Coordination Unit

> Fish Identification

> State Fish Hatcheries About the DNR Camping & Recreation Commissions, Boards and Committees Doing Business Education & Outreach Forests, Land & Water Forms, Publications & Maps Grants Hunting & Trapping Law Enforcement Licenses, Applications & Permits Mackinac State Historic Parks Michigan Historical Center Wildlife & Habitat Printer Friendly Text Version Text Size Commercial Trapnets in Central Lake Huron Since 2001, two commercial operations have been operati ng in central Lake Huron and DNRE has been working to avoid conflicts between user groups through communication. These two commercial fisheries usually fish a total of 17 trap nets between North Point of Thunder Bay and the Greenbush area south of Harrisville. The Alpena Fisher y Research Station can provide interested anglers with coor dinates for the current locations of these nets. Those interested in subscribing to these net location notices ne ed to provide the Alpena Station with their e-mail a ddresses by contacting Jim Johnson at: Johnsonj2@michigan.gov Each commercial trapnet is marked with three staff buoys and black or orange flags. In addition to staff buoys, ne ts are also marked with several red, yellow, white, or oran ge floats that are at least two gallons in size. The n ets are set deep enough to allow for recreational and commercial boat traffic to move freely at the surface but fishermen shoul d be mindful of the net location to avoid loss of gear. Net locations are subject to change, thus boaters are urged to check for updated information. It may take several days for change s in net locations to be posted. Therefore, boaters sho uld also be look carefully for trapnet bouys and staff that mark recently moved commercial fishing gear.

The catch from trapnets is live when harvested and non- ta rget species such as trout and salmon are released.

Why trap nets? In the late 1960s, the Michigan Natural Resources Com mission issued orders that banned large-mesh gill nets a nd required replacement of gill nets with impoundment g ear (trap nets). The intent of the ban was to "encoura ge conversion to the more selective, highly efficient, less da maging, trap nets, which were considered to be compatibl e with the goals of lake trout restoration" (Rybicki and Schnee berger, Recent history and management of the State-lice nsed commercial fishery for lake whitefish in the Michigan Wate rs of Lake Michigan. Michigan DNR, Fisheries Research Report No.1960, 1990). New York, Ohio, and Indiana banned the use of gill nets in 1994. Ontario and most tribal fishing authorities continue to authorize gill nets in their com mercial fisheries. Gill nets, as their name implies, catch fish by entangl ing them in mesh, often in the gill area. Fish caught by the gills may suffocate or sustain irreversible damage to the gill arche s including bleeding from the gills. At times, the fish are boxed with the net and removed from the mesh later; in thes e cases, mortality of the incidental (non -target) catch approaches 100%. Trap nets work like aquatic corrals, capturing fish in large holding pens called "pots". Trap nets cause much lower mortality of the incidental catch and are effici ent in the capture of lake whitefish - the principal ta rget of Lake Huron's commercial fishery. Because the fish are live when taken from trap nets, nontarget fish such as trout and salmon can be safely released. Whitefish from trap nets (because they are fresher) usually sell for more than gi ll-netcaught whitefish. Michigan's State- licensed commercial fisheries on Lake Huron are required to release all trout, salmon, and walleyes. In Thunder Bay virtually all the harvest is composed of lake w hitefish. A few carp, burbot, and channel catfish are occasionally also harvested. The whitefish catch can be purchase d at a variety of stores and restaurants in the Alpena area.

For more on the history and ecological consideratio ns of trap net and gill net commercial gear, see th e following publications: Johnson, J. E., M. P. Ebener, K. Gebhardt, and R. A. B ergstedt. 2004. Comparison of catch and lake trout byca tch in commercial trap nets and gill nets targeting lake whitef ish in northern Lake Huron. Michigan Department of Nat ural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 2071, Ann Arbor.
Abstract. - We compared seasonal lake whitefish catch rates, lake t rout bycatch, and gear-induced lake trout mortality between commercial trapnets and gillnets in north-centra l Lake Huron. Onboard monitors recorded catches from 260 gillnet and 96 trapnet lifts from October 1998 throug h December 1999. Catch rates for lake whitefish were hi ghest in fall for both gear types, reflecting proximity of spawning sit es to the study area. Lake whitefish catch rates were also Related Content

• Lake Trout Hooking Mortality Study

• Lake Invaders

- the Fight for Lake Huron

• Publications on trout and salmon of Lake Huron by Alpena Fishery Research Station

• Status of Saginaw Bay Walleye Population and Progress Towards Recovery

• Cormorant Management Plans for Lake Huron 2010

• Changes in Lake Huron's ecosystem and foodweb lead to collapse of Chinook salmon

• Alpena Fisheries Research Station Staff

• Contact Information and Directions
• History 

## Page 1 of 2 DNR

- Commercial Trapnets in Central Lake Huron

8/25/2011 http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7

- 153

- 10364_52259_10951_11244

- 69487

-- ,00.htmlrelatively high in spring but low in both gear types i n summer. Lake trout were the principal bycatch species in both gears. The lake trout bycatch was lowest in both gear type s in fall, highest in gillnets in spring, and highest in trapnets in summer. The ratio of lake trout to legal whitefish (th e target species) was highest in summer and lowest in fal l in both gear types. The high lake trout ratio in summer was due principally to low catch rates of lake whitefish. All b ut 3 of 186 live lake trout removed from trapnet pots survived for a t least two days of observation in laboratory tanks. The refore, we estimated that post-release survival of trapnetted lake tr out that had not been entangled in the mesh was 98.4 %. In addition, we accounted for stress-induced mortality for lake trout that were live at capture but entangled in the mesh of either gear type. Resulting estimates of lake trout surviva l were higher in trapnets (87.8%) than in gillnets (3 9.6%). The number of lake trout killed per lift was highest during summer in trapnets and during spring in gillnets. In t rapnets, 85% of dead lake trout were observed to be entangled in the mesh of the pot or tunnels. Survival rates of lake trout in gillnets were higher in our study than reported by others, prob ably because our nets were hand lifted in a small boat. Our trapnet-induced mortality estimates on lake trout were h igher than those reported by others because we adjusted o ur estimates to account for post-release mortality caused by han dling and injury. Studies such as ours should prove useful to managers developing harvest allocation options that ar e consistent with the need to protect nontarget populat ions. For example, applying our seasonal lake trout-whitefish c atch ratios to a hypothetical small-boat gillnet fisher y, the lake trout bycatch from harvest of 100,000 kg of whitefish wou ld equal the estimated lake trout production availabl e for harvest in the study area for year 2002. The two trapnet fisheries may have incidentally killed half this number o f lake trout annually from 1995-1999. Bycatch estimates are al so important inputs to catch-at-age decision models used in developing rehabilitation and harvest strategies for tar get and bycatch species.

Johnson, J. E., J. Jonas, and J. P. Peck. 2004. Managemen t of commercial fisheries bycatch, with emphasis on lake trout fisheries of the upper Great Lakes. Michigan Depa rtment of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 20 70, Ann Arbor.
Abstract. - We investigated the collective published record on the significance and management of commercial fisheries bycatch at both global and Great Lakes regional scales t o: 1) to identify elements of Great Lakes ecosystems that are especially vulnerable as fisheries bycatch; and 2) identify o pportunities to minimize incidental catch of sensitive sp ecies in Great Lakes commercial fishing gear. The majority of the world's harvestable fisheries are fully- or over- exploited, and approximately a third of the global catch is composed of bycatch and discards. Bycatch can be characterized as the incidental catch of organisms that were not targeted in a given fishing effort. Significant levels of bycatch can contribute to overharvest. Therefore, it is essential to characterize bycatch when assessing impacts of fishing. Bycatch is not always measured; failure to measure bycatch can result i n underestimation of fishing mortality and thus, overesti mation of quotas available for harvest. Responsible fishing practi ces are being encouraged worldwide and most of these ef forts have focused on reducing or eliminating the amount of b ycatch associated with harvest of targeted species. The magnitude of the bycatch problem is typically proportiona l to fishing effort. In many cases, effort exceeds what is necessary to harvest sustainable yields of target species; thus, reduction of effort is often the single most effective to ol in reducing bycatch. Other methods of managing bycatch in clude: development and use of more selective gear, prohibiting retention of bycatch, and use of incentives an d penalties in quota management. Great Lakes fisherie s have mirrored the global pattern of overfishing. Recovery p rograms for collapsed fish populations have necessitated restrictive harvest controls. Lake whitefish Coregonus clu peaformis populations have recovered, but lake trout Salvelinus namaycush are far from rehabilitated in lakes O ntario, Erie, Michigan, and Huron. Lake trout are the native keystone species of the upper Great Lakes, are the subject o f immense rehabilitation efforts, and have vulnerabil ity similar to lake whitefish to leading gear types used in G reat Lakes commercial fisheries. Efforts to limit commerci al fishing to more selective gear types have been only part ially successful. Bycatch of lake trout in large-mesh gill nets set for lake whitefish has exceeded lake trout harvest quotas i n some management units. The selectivity of gill nets i s difficult to manipulate, especially when target and no ntarget fish are of similar size and overlap in spatial d istribution, as is the case with lake trout and lake whitefish. Trap nets are effective in catching lake whitefish and are less leth al to the catch than gill nets. Commercial bycatch, combined with t argeted fishing for lake trout (recreational and commer cial) and depredation by sea lampreys Petromyzon marinus, has con tributed to the delayed rehabilitation of self-sustain ing lake trout fisheries. Thus, we conclude that the widesprea d use of nonselective gear types such as gill nets in Grea t Lakes commercial fisheries is inappropriate in an era o f shared resources and ecosystem-level rehabilitation effo rts.

Trapnet being lifted in Thunder Bay. Michigan.gov Home | DNR Home | Report All Poaching 1

- 800

- 292

- 7800 | Contact DNR | State Web Sites Link Policy | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy | Security Policy | Michigan News | Michigan.gov Survey
Copyright © 2001

- 2011 State of Michigan 

## Page 2 of 2 DNR

- Commercial Trapnets in Central Lake Huron

8/25/2011 http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7

- 153

- 10364_52259_10951_11244

- 69487

-- ,00.html