Confronting A Dying Future

Monday, July 18th, 2011  |   Posted by :  marybeth

by Trygvie Jensen

Over the last 150 years, the commercial fishery has dwindled to a mere shadow of what it once was. At the turn of the 20th century, Door County alone boasted over 400 fishermen, and was one of the main industries to many of the communities. All around the shores and lakeside communities the commercial fishery was important and a viable way of life. The late 1800s were better known as the expansive heyday for the fisheries. In 1870, Lake Michigan employed over 2,000 people with well over 600 fishing boats plying the lake. By 1889, the numbers swelled to over 10,000 people and double the number of boats.[i]

It was during this 50-year period that fishermen had, in a sense free will on the Great Lakes. A bounty of fish, no regulations, and lake commerce brought more and more people to the Great Lakes regions. However, by 1900 Lake Michigan fishermen were challenged by a number of factors, one of which was cultural lake eutrophication (a process caused by human activity, which increases nutrients to the lake, causing turbidity and warming of the water). Eutrophication ultimately effected fish spawning, depletion of certain fish species, and thus prompting new regulations. Another challenge was the number of exotic species entering the Great Lakes, due in part to the building of the Erie Canal (1825) and the Welland Canal (1829).

The once capricious fishery with the fisherman’s presumptuous attitude of a never-ending harvest of fish, were to become a victim of their own devices. The decline of native fish species became evident in the mid 20^th century. The first species of native stocks, and most noticeably, was the decline of the lake herring. There was a decline in numbers in 1930, 1942, and by 1960, they were nearly non-existent from Lake Michigan and Lake Huron waters. This coincided with the non-native smelt that entered Lake Michigan in 1932. The smelt, a small predator fish found to consume small herring fry and spawn, thus leading to a decline in their numbers. Washington Island commercial fisherman, Jake Ellefson commented: “Before we got the non-native species, there was a wonderful fishery in Lake Michigan. People started fishing herring with pound nets around 1880, and they had great fishing all through the 1920s.

There was never really a failing year. There were at least 120-pound nets set around Green Bay. Those fish reproduced so well without any outside influence, until the darn smelt came along and ate the herring fry by the millions. That’s what killed the chubs and the herring in the bay off the west side. Without the dog-gone non-native species to foul it all up, it was a wonderful fishery.”

The second species of fish, and the most dramatic decline in history was the native lake trout. For years this fish was one the most highly sought after of the commercial fishery and was amazingly resistant to heavy fishing. Up until 1946, the harvest of trout by commercial fishermen remained fairly steady, averaging 5.5 million pounds in Lake Michigan. Once the parasitic lamprey entered Lake Michigan in 1936, the species prospered very well. In a mere 10 years, they devastated the native lake trout and preyed on several other species. The lake trout proved easy pray for the lamprey, because of their slow moving nature in the water, and thin skin. By 1952, the lake trout were gone, thus leaving most commercial fishermen at a real disadvantage. Many turned to the chub fishery and whitefish, which were still found to be plentiful for the time being.

For many commercial fishermen, the chub fishery was the backbone of the industry. The cisco “chub” is a deepwater cousin to the whitefish and herring. They are found in 300 to 400 feet near the lake bottom, where they feed on small zooplankton. The chubs thrived very well over the years, with few natural predators, and were there for the taking when the lake trout and herring fell victim to predation by the lamprey and smelt. However, once the lake trout were depleted, the lamprey victimized some of the larger species of chubs. Over time over-fishing and lamprey predation, the chubs were starting to decline in numbers, most noticeably were the larger species. The highly sought after larger chubs, as the mooneye and black fin became almost nonexistent by the late 1960s.

Today, only one species of chubs remain, which is nicknamed the bloater chub. In 2007, the chub fishery hit another low, and began to disappear from Lake Michigan. It remains a mystery to many of the experts. Retired commercial fisherman Alvin Anderson and his son Dan, who still fishes and has seen them come and go over the years, now looks bleak:  “The chubs have been good the last five years (2001 to 2006) for my son Dan down here off of Milwaukee. Now, it’s almost unbelievable, it went from 150 percent down to 20 percent — just like that that, within three months time. It has not gotten any better.”

As long as there are commercial fishermen and healthy fish stocks there will almost sure to be a commercial fishery, one would tend to believe. This forecast seems glib and easy to predict but like any weather forecast, as anyone well knows, it’s hard to give a clear and true forecast. The ecology of the lakes is forever changing; commercial fish stocks, which in today’s market for this region is whitefish and chubs prove to be cyclical; markets ebb and flow; and many other variables will effect the outlook for the future of the fisheries. Says commercial fisherman Jake Ellefson:

“I would have loved to have my boys on the island [Washington Island] making their living here — give them our outfit, but it doesn’t do much good if there isn’t enough fish to make a living… It’s not easy. That’s the way it is now [2003].

“In Michigan, it’s all tribal fishing. We knew that it was going to happen; that’s why I couldn’t encourage my boys. We had a great outfit, but what good is that if you can’t make a living. I figured I would have had to invest $200,000 to get a good entrapment rig; to have a good boat you can spend $100,000 and you have to have a good boat here on the island and would have to travel to areas like Big Bay. You need to have at least thirty entrapment nets and a darn good man to run them to stay competitive in this day and age and even for the future. I figured the boys could of done that, but what happens when you run out of fish. I was just lucky, you know, really lucky that I was able to make my living; that there was enough fish to sustain my career.

“My brothers and I were all in World War II. After the war we all came back to the island and discovered we all wanted to live here. We decided to work together as the Ellefson Brothers and build upon our father’s fishery. I don’t think any of us regretted that decision. It was a hard life and we worked hard, and we had a wonderful life living and working together.

“When I was young there were chubs, lake trout, herring, perch, and whitefish for us to catch. Green Bay and Lake Michigan were full of fish. Now Green Bay provides only a small percent of the Wisconsin commercial catch. Today, only chubs and whitefish remain for the commercial catch.

“Beginning in the 1920’s, there was a dramatic change in the ecology of Lake Michigan. First, the ocean fish smelt had a population explosion in the lake and were largely responsible for the decline of the herring and chub fishery in Green Bay as well as depleting other species. Then the lamprey eel destroyed the lake trout, later the alewives became very detrimental to all native species, consuming large amounts of spawn and plankton.

“Now the zebra mussels, gobies, white bass, white perch, and others continue to threaten the remaining chubs and whitefish. In addition to a good abundance of chubs and whitefish, the commercial fisherman needs to have more flexibility in his operation.

“The fisheries resources of the state of Wisconsin have been governed by the Conservation Commission and for several decades now by the Department of Natural Resources. Many of the regulations are good. I’m referring to the size limits for whitefish, the mesh size of the whitefish gill nets, and also size of mesh and general design of both trap nets and pound nets. A number of years ago the Department issued rules creating a limited entry fishery. The limited entry was supposed to benefit the full time fishermen. Some of the rules are too restrictive. We need to be able to fish gill nets, trap nets, and pound nets; moreover the catch requirements for license renewal should be removed. The chub net mesh size should be reduced until the plankton regains their former abundance. We need to have the ‘one night lift’ for whitefish removed and increased footage for whitefish gill nets permitted. The remaining fishermen need this flexibility to have a chance to survive.

“The citizens of the state of Wisconsin have had a steady supply of Lake Michigan and Green Bay fish available throughout the history of the state. If indeed the fisheries resource is to be shared equally, then the consumer needs a steady supply of state fish available to purchase. The only way that can happen is for a healthy commercial fishery to survive.

“The commercial fishery should also be assigned a quota of lake trout for each license. This would go a long way in assuring the future health of the fishery. It is entirely feasible and should have happened years ago. Perhaps the most glaring and potentially most detrimental mistake was the lack of regulation concerning removal of ballast water by ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway when the seaway was opened. The Great Lakes will be plagued with unwanted non-native species forever, because of this mistake. We can only hope that Lake Michigan will sustain successful fishing operations far into the future. Enlightened management by the DNR would go a long way towards making this happen.[ii]

After 1980 and the inception of limited entry and the quota system, a fishermen was forced to rethink his operations. The next generation and on into the future, fishermen will have to fish a little smarter — more business oriented. When asked what it was going to take to be a commercial fisherman in the twenty-first century, most concur that fishermen are going to have to change their ways to some degree.  Jeff Weborg commented:

“In order to be a fisherman in the 21st century you’re going to have to be a businessman and not a fisherman.  I mean that in a respectful way.  The old fishermen — and we still have a few of them around, not older guys but [guys] still operating under the old thought pattern — think if I catch one hundred pounds of fish and I get a dollar a pound,  I made a hundred dollars — I’m rich.  But, [what if] the price of fish goes down to fifty cents a pound and I have to double the amount of gear I have in the water and hire another guy to help me and spend more time in getting double the fish and I still get my one hundred dollars? He never takes into account what it costs to produce those two hundred pounds of fish, so he never took that into consideration.  That was the old tradition — if the price goes down, I have to catch more fish.  You just can’t do that any more.  Now days, you have to figure out how to catch less and get more.  It’s not how many fish I can catch, but how to get more for what I catch, and that’s a real challenge.  Marketing has become a real issue, and that’s what I see as the biggest challenge for today and tomorrow.” [iii]

One thing is very evident now compared to the past there are fewer fishermen harvesting the waters of Lake Michigan. If you look towards the future, some say it looks pretty bleak. The way things are going with all the restrictions, regulations, and without any of the younger people breaking into this profession, there may not be a commercial fishery left by the middle of this century. Says retired commercial fisherman Alvin Anderson, who adamantly contests this sad portending of future lethargy:

“I can’t blame those (fishermen) with all these rules and regulations for younger guys to get into the business. With all the regulations, I mean, you have to have rules, but some of these regulations and rules we’re under now, there’s no call for them what’s so ever.  It’s all politics and it’s all a bunch of B.S. and it’s a waste of a resource. I don’t know if it will ever change; probably after it’s too late. You know, you count all the fishermen left today, how old are they, and how old are the youngest ones, maybe forty? All the rest of them are older. The average age is probably fifty-five or sixty years of age. You take the age of all fishermen and twenty years from now that’s going to put ninety-nine percent of all the fishermen beyond sixty-five. Then what’s going to happen? The industry is dead — it’s over! I’ve been thinking about this quite seriously; I’ve been trying to figure out what the average age is. With the majority of the fishermen twenty years form now — the industry is dead. By 2025 it will be all over. All you’ll see is a bunch of boats lying by the dock that nobody will…ninety-nine percent of the people won’t even know what they were or what they were used for. That’s what will happen.”