Login
Join Now!
Membership Info
Sections
Home
Articles
The Darter - Newsletter
NFC Forum
NFC TV
Photo Gallery
NFC Store
Joe Tomelleri Store
Grants & Programs
Adopt a Tank
Blue Pike
Exotics Fish Tourny
Grant History
Sustainable Aquaculture
Web Fund
|
Blue Pike Recovery Plan
Blue Pike Recovery Team, October 1975
PLAN RATIONALE
SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND STATUS
Introduction The blue pike, Stizostedion vitreum glaucum, once an abundant and Valuable fish of the lower Great Lakes, apparently has been extirpated or nearly so as an entity in Lakes Erie and Ontario. A relict population is reported to exist in a Canadian tributary of Lake Huron. The species is not known to have inhabited other waters. Despite disagreement in the literature concerning the taxonomic differences between the blue pike and the walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, the blue pike is readily distinguishable by its blue color and lack of yellow/ pigmentation. The rapid depletion of the blue pike in Lakes Erie and Ontario in the late 1950's was a severe economic loss to the commercial and sport fishery. The last confirmed specimen was collected in 1965. Other species of equivalent value have not replaced the blue pike. Although the cause of the decline is not known, pollution, oxygen depletion, over-exploitation, and competition with rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) probably were contributing factors. Distribution
The distribution of blue pike in the Great Lakes was limited primarily to central and eastern Lake Erie, the Niagara River, and western and southern Lake Ontario (Hubbs and Lagler 1958; Scott and Crossman 1973). Blue pike apparently still inhabit a portion of the Lake Huron drainage. This conclusion is based upon examination of S. vitreum specimens and photographs of specimens from that water in 1974 (John W. Parsons, personal communication), and from reports on this genus in Lake Nipissing by Harkness (1936), Sinclair (1961), and Jorgensen (1974). Reports of blue pike in Three-Mile Lake in the Lake Huron drainage, Long Lake in the Lake Ontario drainage, and several unnamed lakes in Canada (Radforth 1944) were found to be unsubstantiated (Stone 1948). Although Radforth (1944) also reported blue pike in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, neither Stone (1948) nor Scott and Crossman (1973) could fin evidence to substantiate the report. Taxonomic Status
For much of the last century, the nomenclature of the blue pike has troubled taxonomists. Early observers (Goode 1884; Jordan and Evermann 1902; Dymond 1922) recognized yellow, gray and blue forms of S. vitreum in Lake Erie, but were not sure of the significance of the forms. The yellow form obviously was the walleye but the blue form was different enough to lead Kendall (1921) to suggest that it was a separate species or subspecies and Hubbs (1926) to describe it as a new species, S. glaucum. Later the Lake Erie form was given subspecies status, S. v. glaucum Hubbs (Deason 1936). Whether the blue form from Lake Ontario was the same as the Lake Erie subspecies troubled-Deason (1936), who suggested that the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario blue pike may have been separate subspecies and recommended further study. Stone (1948) recommended that blue pike be given specific status and that Lake Erie and Lake Ontario blue pike populations be considered separate subspecies. However, his views were never generally adopted. Christie (1973) proposed that Lake Ontario blue pike were migrants from Lake Erie, and presented convincing arguments based largely on similar fluctuations in year-class strengths, commercial production, and growth characteristics of the species in the two lakes. Since the early 1950's, most taxonomists and biologists have accepted the blue pike of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as a single subspecies. The gray form (or gray pike) of Lakes Erie and Ontario has been widely assumed to be a walleye-blue pike intergrade. Size and Growth Rate
The smaller average size and slower growth of blue pike were described as factors for helping separate blue pike from walleye and for establishing speciation (Adamstone 1922; Hubbs 1926; Deason 1936; and Stone 1948). Adamstone reported that blue pike in Lake Erie seldom exceeded 0.45 kg and rarely reached 2.3 kg, and that walleyes often weighed 2.3 to 4.5 kg and sometimes as much as 9 kg. Of fish examined by Adamstone, the oldest pike was age VI and the largest was 33 cm in length; for walleyes, the respective values were age XII and 64 cm. Deason reported maximums of age IX and 46 cm for blue pike and age XI and 80 cm for walleyes. Differences in average lengths of fish at different ages were used by Adamstone and Deason to demonstrate differences in rate of growth. As examples, blue pike and walleyes that had completed six growing seasons were 26 and 34 cm long, respectively, in 1921 (Adamstone 1922), and 31 and 42 cm long in 1927-32 (Deason 1936). Adamstone believed that the difference in growth was hereditary but Deason reasoned that the difference was due to the deeper and colder water in which blue pike characteristically lived. The sharp decline in abundance and the resultant increase in growth of blue pike in the 1950's dispels the view that blue pike always grew more slowly than walleyes. Parsons (1967) reported that blue pike that had completed four growing seasons were about 8 times heavier in 1959 (1.3 kg}.%than in 1951 (0.17 kg) and considerably longer (48 cm as compared with 28 cm). In fact, Lake Erie blue pike in 1959 were larger than Lake Erie walleyes of the same age in 1921 (Adamstone 1922), in 1927-32 (Deason 1936), and in 1943-54 (Parsons 1970), and as large as the extraordinarily fast growing walleyes in 1959 (Parsons 1970). For example, in 1959, among fish that had completed 4 years of life, average lengths and weights of blue pike and walleyes were the same (48 cm and 1.3 kg). These data are indications that slow growth, and consequently small size, are not necessarily characteristic of blue pike, and, therefore, have no bearing on taxonomic recognition. Orbital-Interorbital Proportion
One difficulty in assigning species or subspecies rank to the blue pike was the lack of reliable morphological differentiation between it and the walleye. Although the two forms exhibited nearly identical measurements and counts, Hubbs and Deason demonstrated a tendency for blue pike in Lake Erie to have a proportionately larger orbital length (0) and smaller interorbital width (I). Hubbs reported that the 0/I ratios of Lake Erie walleyes and blue pike ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 and from 1.4 to 2.0, respectively, and were, therefore, useful for separating the two forms. He did not present the data from which these values were determined. Deason, in his key to Lake Erie $Stizostedion, gave 0/I ratios (he used the term E/I) of 0.9'to'1.4 for admit walleyes (ranging as high as 1.8 for juveniles) and 1.2 to 2.0 for blue pike (values again were highest for juveniles). The analyses of data from other sources demonstrate that orbital proportions are not necessarily helpful for distinguishing between blue pike and walleye. For example, the increase in growth of blue pike in the mid-1950's described in the previous section was so great that changes in body proportions were almost certain to have occurred; consequently, orbital length and interorbital width proportions for fish of the same size after 1954 most likely changed. (See Hile 1936 and Martin 1949 for a general review of the effect of growth rates on body proportions). Evidence also is strong that 0/! ratios vary among samples of blue pike and walleyes because of differences in the lengths of the fish examined and because of differences in growth rates of the population from which the samples were taken. Reports on S. vitreum specimens in Lake Nipissing (Sinclair 1961; Jorgensen 1974) tend to support this suggestion. Color
Blue pike generally have been identified in the field by their color. Hubbs and Stone characterized the Lake Erie blue pike in life by its grayish-blue dorsal surface and bluish-white paired fins, and the walleye by its typically brassy yellow dorsal surface (never bluish) and usually yellowish paired fins. Scott and Crossman (1973) described the blue pike from the Niagara River as slate-blue or steel-blue on the dorsal surface, ice-blue to silvery on the sides, and silvery to white on the ventral surface. The paired fins were white. Deason reported that the color of Lake Ontario blue pike was similar to that of fish from Lake Erie, but tended to be a darker, duller shade of blue. As indicated previously (Parsons 1967), the subspecies in Lake Erie had no yellow pigment. This was based on the examination of blue pike and walleyes in the commercial landings of most fishing ports between Sandusky, Ohio and Dunkirk, New York, during the fall of 1957 and the spring and fall of 1958, 1959, and 1960 (Parsons, personal communication). During that period, the two were easily separated. The difference in color -- steel blue vs. yellowish mottlings -- was clearly evident. The few fish that were questionable, i.e., the relatively scarce gray form, had yellow pigment on at least some parts of the body or fins. "Gray pike" (in the vernacular of the commercial fishermen) are still occasionally found in eastern Lake Erie, and fishermen sometimes report them as blue pike in their catch records. Spatial, Bathymetric, Reproductive, and Temporal Isolation
Deason (1936) implied that Lake Erie blue pike ranked as a subspecies in part because of their isolation from walleye stocks in the lake. Blue pike inhabited primarily the eastern and central basins, whereas walleyes were concentrated in the western basin; they spawned in deeper and cooler water than the walleye; they, like walleyes, spawned almost entirely in open lake areas where they were most abundant; and they usually spawned in May, whereas walleyes usually spawned in April. These general conclusions, which Stone generally agreed with and enlarged upon, were based on examination of samples of blue pike and walleyes in the commercial catch in 1927-32 and on analysis of the 1913-32 commercial catch statistics. Other evidence of reproductive isolation was indicated by sharp differences in year-class strength in 1942-56. For example, blue pike had exceptionally strong year classes in 1944, 1949, and 1954 and weak year classes in the other 12 years (Parsons 1967); whereas walleyes in the same period had relatively strong year classes in all years except 1945, 1953, 1955, and 1956 (Parsons 1970). Stone reported Ed that blue pike spawned in the open water of western Lake Ontario in early May when water temperatures were about 6.6 C (range 3.9-8.9 C), at depths usually near 15 m (extremes 5-28 m), and that Lake Ontario walleyes spawned in April in shallow estuaries and near river mouths. R. G. Ferguson (personal communication) reported that blue pike usually spawned in May at depths exceeding 13 m in the central basin of Lake Erie, and Parsons (1972) reported that walleyes in the western basin spawned about mid-April at depths usually less than 6 m, at water temperatures near 7.2 C (range 5.5-10.0 C). In Pennsylvania waters of the eastern basin of Lake Erie on 21 May 1953, Shyrl Hood (personal communication) observed gravid blue pike and walleye, s caught together in gillnets set on the bottom at a depth of 15 m at 8.9 C. These walleyes were of a small isolated population long recognized by fishermen and biologists, but only recently acknowledged in the literature (Wolfert 1969). These observations clearly indicate that walleyes and blue pike in Lake Erie and Ontario spawned at about the same water temperature but that the blue pike typically spawned about a month later because their habitat warmed more slowly in the spring, and that walleyes and blue pike in typical blue pike habitat sometimes spawned at the same location, time, depth, and water temperature. Intergradation and Introgressive Hybridization According to Deason, the w/de overlap of morphometric characters of blue pike and walleyes in Lake Erie suggested intergradation to such a degree that the two forms were labeled as subspecies rather than species. He made no reference to intergrades or gray pike. Stone, on the other hand, referred to the gray pike and judged that because of its intermediate color characteristics, it was a walleye-blue pike intergrade; however, he referred to only one specimen in his collection. Trautman (1957) also assumed that gray pike were intergrades because of their intermediate characteristics, and reported that intergrades were common in Lake Erie when blue pike were abundant. Despite common acceptance of the existence of intergrades, their capacity to reproduce was never measured. W. B. Scott (personal communication) examined a number of relatively large gray pike, which he assumed to be intergrades, but their gonads were so poorly developed that sex could not be distinguished. Although live young were produced by artificially cross breeding male walleyes and female blue pike, and their reciprocals (Clark 1959), the fish were not raised to maturity. Regier et al. (1969) theorized that walleye-blue pike intergradation in Lake Erie ultimately led to introgressive hybridization and extirpation of blue pike because the high abundance of walleyes in the mid-1950's caused a serious breach of reproductive isolation. Blue pike were reported to be vulnerable to introgressive hybridization at that time because their stocks were severely depleted by exploitation and were subjected to stumper oxygen depletion and competition with rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax, for food and space. The history of the composition of the S. vitreum populations of Lake Nipissing suggests that an advanced state of introgressive hybridization of "blue pike" may be in progress there. Sport Fishery
Statistics on the blue pike sport fishery are lacking, but the following observations give some evidence of the value of the blue pike as a sport fish in Lake Erie. Kelley (1940) reported that sport fishing for blue pike near Cleveland, Ohio, sometimes was so intensive and successful that it appeared more like a "food fishery" than a "sport fishery". Walsh (1955)' described a booming sport fishery near Erie, Pennsylvania, in the early 1950's that supported a fleet of 25 party boats, each with a capacity of 20 to 60 fishermen. Alfred Larsen (personal communication), corroborated Walsh's observations. Other areas where blue pike supported large sport fisheries in the 1940's and early 1950's were near Sandusky, Ohio (Clarence F. Clark personal communication); near Dunkirk and Silver Creek, New York (Kenneth Johnston personal communication); near the outlet of the Niagara River (W. B. Scott personal communication); and southwest of Buffalo, New York (William F. Shepherd personal communication). Collapse of the Fishery
The severity of the loss of the blue pike is indicated by the loss of a commercial fishery that produced nearly 450 million kg of marketable fish in 1885-1962. This estimate was based on extrapolations of sporadic reports of annual blue pike landings in United States waters of Lake Erie in 1885-1914, and of Lake Ontario in 1897-1917, and from annual production records for all of Lake Erie in 1915-62 and all of Lake Ontario in 1918-62. These statistics and others reported here, through 1973, were taken from Baldwin and Saalfeld (1962) and unpublished supplements. Lake Erie
In 1915-59, blue pike contributed 27% of the total commercial production of Lake Erie, and in some years their contribution exceeded 50% (Parsons 1967). Average annual production was 5.8 million kg in 1915-59 (maximum, 12.2 million in 1936), 2,270 kg in 1960-62, and from about 227 kg to zero in 1963-75. The collapse of the blue pike fishery forced blue pike fishermen to either seek other species or go out of business. Lake Ontario
Commercial production of blue pike in Lake Ontario was about one-tenth that in Lake Erie. Annual production averaged 59,000 kg (maximum 294,000 kg in 1952) in 1918-57, declined to 2,270 kg in 1958-61, and was insignificant, in 1967-75. Apparently, sport fishing was centered in the lower Niagara River and adjacent lake areas in Ontario and New York (E. J. Crossman personal communication) and in and near the Oswego River, New York (William Pearce personal communication). The loss of the Lake Ontario blue pike was of serious consequence because it was the last of the valuable deepwater species to disappear, preceded by Atlantic salmon, lake trout, and lake whitefish (Christie 1973). Since the late 1950's, biologists of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources annually sampled eastern Lake Ontario with gillnets and trawls, and monitored commercial landings, but no blue pike were observed after 1960 (W. J. Christie personal communication). No blue pike were caught during fishery investigations over relatively wide areas of Lake Ontario in 1964 and 1972 (unpublished cruise reports of the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory's R/V Cisco in 1964 and R/V Kaho in 1972, and of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' R/V Cottus in 1972). Protection and Propagation
During the history of the blue pike commercial fishery, fishing regulations for Lake Erie were relatively uniform and liberal. Although regulations in this century varied somewhat from state to state over the years, those described for Pennsylvania in 1939 (Granite 1939) generally were representative for the lake as a whole; minimum total length 28 cm (11 inches), open season March 1 to December 20, minimum gillnet mesh size 8 cm (3-1/8 inches, stretch measure), and minimum mesh size for trapnet cribs 7 cm (2-3/4 inches). Apparently, there were few or no restrictions on the sport fishery. Despite the collapse of the fishery and the fish population in 1957-59, no changes were made in the regulations to better protect the blue pike primarily because severe fluctuations in abundance of blue pike in the past had become so common place that few people were especially alarmed about the condition of the fishery. Consequently, the blue pike were nearly extinct by the time it became known that they were endangered. In fact, commercial fishing for blue pike was not banned until 1967 in Ohio, 1971 in New York, and 1975 in Pennsylvania. Commercial fishing for blue pike is yet to be banned in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario probably because the fish is considered extinct there. In an attempt to increase abundance, blue pike fry were planted in Lake Erie sporadically from about 1910 to 1962 (Shyrl Hood and Clarence Clark personal communications; planting records are incomplete and are for Pennsylvania only). Most were planted in 1910 (142 million), 1915 (65 million), 1916 (111 million), 1932 (159 million), and 1957 (37 million). Known plantings for each of 10 other years were usually 3 million or less. There was no correlation between numbers planted and production in subsequent years. There are no other known records of blue pike plantings in waters other than Lake Erie. In face of the evidence, plantings apparently had little effect on blue pike abundance, and the modest fishing restrictions did not curb the decline of the species. Species Status
The last recorded Lake Erie blue pike in its so-called "pure form" was identified by biologists of the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory during routine sampling of the commercial landings in 1965. Since then, no confirmed blue pike have been observed by any of the state, provincial, or federal fishery agencies working on Lake Erie, and none have been observed from Lake Ontario. In recent years, various authors gave the following opinions on the status of the blue pike in the Great Lakes:Regier et al. (1969), "disappearance final"; Van Meter and Trautnman (1970), "commercially extinct"; McAllister(1970), "rare, perhaps extinct"; Christie (1973), "disappearance of the species"; and Scott and Crossman (1973), "totally disappeared" (these authors deleted blue pike from their list of Great Lakes fishes). The cause of the purported extinction of blue pike in Lakes Erie and Ontario is not known. Although the views of biologists on the decline or extinction of the form are too numerous and complex to examine here, most believe that one or more of the following factors were involved pollution and severe oxygen depletion in the summer in the central basin of Lake Erie; excessive commercial and sport exploitation;competition with and predation by exotic smelt; and introgressive hybridization. Overview
Evidence is strong that (1) the blue pike is a valid subspecies of Stizostedion vitreum, (2) its habits, habitat, populations, and fisheries generally were separate from those of the walleye in Lakes Erie and Ontario, (3) the Lake Ontario blue pike population consisted largely or entirely of migrants from Lake Erie, (4) it is reported to be extirpated or nearly so in Lakes Ontario and Erie and (5) relict populations are reported to exist in Canadian and U. S. waters; these populations are as yet unconfirmed as blue pike. THE RECOVERY STEP PLAN
Primary Objective:Restore a viable population of blue pike at a secure level, in suitable habitat, preferably in its former range SECTION I. BLUE PIKE:STATUS AND POTENTIAL FOR RECOVERY
1. Acquire suspect blue pike specimens for identification and propagation 11. Obtain required federal, state, and foreign collecting permits 12. Inform fishermen of finders fee and the need for specimens 121. News releases, personal contacts, and posters 13. Collect live blue pike suspects 131. Priority areas of collection 1311. Lake Erie 13111. Endemic waters of U. S. and Canada 1312. Canadian waters where suspect blue pike have been reported 1313. Lake Ontario 13131. Endemic waters of U. S. and Canada 1314. Other waters purported to have been stocked with blue pike 132. Public sources (federal, state, and provincial agencies) 1321. Routine fish population surveys 1322. Special blue pike surveys 133. Private sources 1331. Commercial fishermen 13311. Regularly licensed fishermen 13312. Fishermen under special contract to fish for blue pike 1332 Sport fishermen 13321. Voluntary contributors 13322. Creel census 13323. Boat landings 1333. Research and educational institutions, and private contract agencies 13331. Volunteer and contract services 14. Confirm blue pike specimens and populations 141. Morphological characteristics 1411. Coloration, body size, eye size, other 142. Electrophoretic characteristics of enzymes 143. Other genetic characteristics (Note :If blue pike or acceptable genetic intergrades cannot be found, declare the fish extinct and terminate recovery effort and team.) SECTION II. BLUE PIKE PRESERVATION AND PROPAGATION
2. Develop program of propagation and culture 21. Artificial propagation in hatcheries and laboratories 211. Hold and protect blue pike broodstock in designated existing state and federal hatcheries 212. Use best hatching and rearing methods and techniques for producing successive generations of blue pike 213. Develop new and more efficient methods and techniques of blue pike propagation and culture including studies on behavior, growth, and environmental tolerances of eggs, fry, and other fish. 2131. Fish hatcheries 21311. State and federal 2132. Laboratories 21321. State and federal agencies, educational institutions, and private contract groups 214. Develop cost analysis and determine feasibility of raising blue pike of different sizes and ages 2141. Fry and post-fry 2142. Fingerlings and yearlings 2143. Broodstock 215. Provide new hatchery production and facilities 2151. Construct separate isolated holding and rearing tanks, ponds and raceways on existing hatchery grounds 2152. Contract private sources to raise blue pike 2153. Construct state or federal hatchery designed for blue pike 22. Lake, reservoir and pond culture 221. Plant broodstock in reservoirs and natural lakes 2211. Establish natural populations and reproduction 22111. Preserve gene pool 22112. Supply eggs for hatcheries 22113. Supply fish for introductions into other waters. 222. Plant fry in state and federal wildlife refuge ponds, lakes, highway borrow pits, and other protected waters. 2221:Supply fingerlings for stocking other waters 2222. Supply fingerlings for rearing as broodstock in hatcheries 223. Assessment of planting success SECTION III. BLUE PIKE REHABILITATION
3. Long-range plantings of blue pike in Lake Erie and other suitable environments 31. Habitat and environmental inventory 311. Former natural habitat and spawning grounds 312. Environmental factors 3121. Water temperature, quality and depth 3122. Availability of food, escape cover and spawning sites 3123. Levels of interspecific competition and predation 32. Planting methods and practices for optimum survival and assessment 321. Locations 3211. Open water, shorelines, reefs, river mouths 322. Numbers of fish and planting density 3221. Fry, fingerlings and yearlings 323. Time of year 324. Truck, boat, air-drops 33. Protection of natural and planted stocks ' 331. Continuing public information services 332. Adequate legal restrictions on fishing and their enforcement 3321. Ban sport and commercial harvest of the species 3322. Set aside state and federal sanctuaries 34. Enhancement 'of habitat for blue pike thru public information programs and enforcement 341. Encourage water quality improvement 342. Enforce anti-pollution laws 35. Evaluation of plantings of blue pike (for long-range plantings as well as first\par introductions) 351. Monitoring 3511. Routine and special fish population surveys 35111. Federal, state, and provincial agencies 35112. Educational institutions and private contract groups 3512. Examination of angler's catches and net-run catches of commercial fishermen 352. Determination of population structure 3521. Distribution and abundance 3522. Age and size composition 36. Estimation of stocking requirements for maintaining blue pike populations 361. Evaluation of basic stocks 3611. Contribution from natural reproduction 3612. Survival of planted fish 3613. Carrying capacity 362. Determine numbers of fish required for plantings 3621. Sustain secure level of abundance 36211. Fingerlings and yearlings required 362111. First plantings estimated to be 250,000 four-inch fingerlings annually 362112. First plantings estimated to be 5,000 10-12 inch sub-adults or adults annually 36212. Fry and post-fry required 362121. Pilot plantings will consist of any available fry 37. Sustain propagation and plantings, and surveys and investigations as required and as capability permits 371. Successive planting of 500,000 four-inch fingerlings and 10,000 10-12 inch sub-adults necessary to sustain populations. 38. Determine framework for allowable harvest and supportive regulations prior to removal of blue pike from the endangered list. RECOVERY PLAN NARRATIVE
Saving the blue pike from extinction and maintaining stocks for possible rehabilitation will first require the collection and preservation of relatively large numbers of broodstock in hatcheries. One potential source of broodstock is Lake Erie where blue pike were once abundant. The occasional bluish walleye or blue pike suspect collected during the past few years may be blue pike-walleye intergrades. Whether or not some of the intergrades can be selectively propagated into the blue form which is genetically different than walleyes, must yet be determined. The ultimate solution may depend upon populations of blue pike reported to exist in a drainage system tributary to Lake Huron and other Canadian waters. Also, U. S. waters reported to have been planted with Lake Erie mixed walleye-blue pike stocks may have potential. These waters may provide potential gene pools that could be tapped to save the blue pike from extinction. Further investigation is needed, however, to establish the credibility of both Canadian and U. S. populations. The selective propagation of blue pike from Lake Erie will be a tedious, time-consuming process. In the spring of 1975, nine blue pike suspects were collected from Lake Erie, of which three were ripe females. The eggs from these fish failed to develop even though they were fertilized with viable sperm. Despite this failure, propagation of suitable specimens will be continued. Conceivably, if the fish in other waters are verified as blue pike and eggs or fish are made available, the reestablishment of blue pike in Lakes Erie and Ontario may be greatly simplified. Sauger may serve as an example of restoration. Once relatively abundant in western Lake Erie, the sauger became so scarce in the 1960's that the capture of one was a rarity. In an attempt to reestablish the sauger, the Ohio Division of Wildlife planted several hundred thousand fingerlings in the western basin in 1974. Studies in 1975 indicated high survival and rapid growth. If similar results can be obtained with plantings of blue pike, even if it fails to reproduce naturally, a basic stock can be maintained indefinitely in Lake Erie. Because of the uncertainty of the success or timeliness of some phases of the blue pike recovery plan, several steps in the plan may be active simultaneously. Perhaps some steps may never to activated. In any case, the plan will be evaluated annually and its course redirected as necessary. Attempts to obtain and propagate blue pike in 1975 have revealed the enormity of the task at hand. BLUE PIKE REFERENCES
(Asterisk* 'indicate authors referred to in the text) *Adamstone', F. B. 1922. Rates of growth of the blue and yellow pike perch. Univ. Toronto Stud. Biol. Set. 20. Pub1. Ont. Fish Res. Lab. 5:77-86. Alexander, A. B. 1905. Statistics of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1903. Dept. of Commerce and Labor, Bur. of Fish., U. S. Gov't Printing Office, Wash., D. C. pp. 643-731. Andrews, A. 1941. About commercial fishing. Penn. Sportsmen's Hunting and Fishing Digest. 1(5):49-52. Anonymous. 1966. Report on the commercial fisheries resources of the Lake Erie basin. U. S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildl. Set., Bur. of Comm. Fish., Ann Arbor, Mich. Aug. 127 pp. (Unpublished report). Applegate, V. C. and H. D. 'Van Meter. 1970. A brief history of commercial fishing in Lake Erie. U. S. Dept. Int., U. S. and Wildl. Set., Bur. Comm. Fish., Fishery Leaflet 630, 28 pp. *Baldwin, N. S. and R. W. Saalfeld. 1962. Commercial fish production in the Great Lakes, 1867-1960. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 3. 166 pp. Baldwin, 'N. S. 1957. Great Lakes fisheries:lamprey control and research. Pages 46-49 . The Great.Lakes 1957. Projects and Developments. Great Lakes Commission. Bangham, R. V. and G. W. Hunter III. 1939. Studies on fish parasites of Lake Erie. Distribution Studies. Zoologica, New York Zoological Soc. 24, Part 27:385-448. Bean, T. H. 1902. Food and game fishes of New York. New York Forest Fish and Game Commission, 7th Rep. J. B..Lyon Co., Albany. pp. 251-460. Beeton, A. N. 1961. Environmental changes in Lake Erie. Trans. Amer.Fish. Soc. 90(2):153-159. 1963. Limnological survey of Lake Erie 1959 and 1960. Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Tech. Rep. 6. 32 pp. Bullet, N. R. 1912. Pennsylvania Department of Fisheries report for 1911.C. E. Aughinbaugh, Harrisburg, Pa. 32 pp. 1913. Pennsylvania Department of Fisheries report for 1912. C. E. Aughinbaugh. Harrisburg, Pa. , 128 pp. Bullet, N. R. 1916. Pennsylvania Department of Fisheries report for 1915.Wm. Stanley Ray, Harrisburg, Pa. 198 pp. 1917. Pennsylvania Department of Fisheries report for 1916. Wm. Stanley Ray, Harrisburg, Pa. 164 pp. Carlander, K. D. 1950. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 281 pp. *Christie, W. J. 1973. A review of the changes in the fish species composition of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Tech. Rep. 23. *Clark, C. F. 1959. Walleye in Ohio and its management. Ohio Dept. Nat. Resour., Div. Wildl. 20 pp. (Unpublished report). Cobb, J. N. 1898. The fisheries of Lake Ontario in 1897. New York Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forests. 3rd Rep. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., New York and Albany. 205-221. 1900. The comercial fisheries of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. New York Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forests. 5th Rep. James B. Lyon, Albany, New York. 189-239. Crossman, E. J. 1968. Changes in the Canadian freshwater fish fauna. Pages 1-20 . A symposium on introduction of exotic species. Ont. Dept. Lands and Forests, Res. Branch Res. Rept. No. 82, 111 pp. Cummins, R. Jr. 1956. Summary of the Ohio Lake Erie commercial fish catch, 1885-1955. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. Wildl. Rep. 59 pp. Davis, J. W. 1960. Canadian commercial fish landings of eastern, central, and western Lake Erie, 1870-1958. Ont. Dept. Lands and Forests, Rep., 83 pp. *Deason, H. J. 1933. Preliminary report of the growth rate, dominance, and maturity of the pike-perches (Stizostedion) of Lake Erie. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 63:348-360. * 1936. Morphometric and life history studies of the pike-perches--(Stizostedion) of Lake Erie. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor.368 pp. *Dymond, J. R. 1922. A provisional list of the fishes of Lake Erie. Univ. Toronto Stud. Biol. Set. 20. Pub1. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 4:57-73. 1926. The fishes of Lake Nipigon. Univ. Toronto Stud. Biol. Set. 27. Publ. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 108 pp. Edminster, J. O. 1940. Lake Erie's commercial fishing. Ohio Cons. Bull. 4(7):4-5. Federal Trade Commission. 1945. Cost of production and distribution of fish in the Great Lakes area. Distribution Methods and Costs, Part VII. 14 pp. Ferguson, R. G. 1957. Fish tagging studies in Lakes Erie, St. Clair, and Huron. Ont. Dept. Lands and Forests, preliminary report, Div. Res. 12 pp. Forrest,'-G. W. 1953. Editor's angle. Pennsylvania Angler. 22(7):30. Gallagher, H. R., A. G. Huntsman, D. J. Taylor , and J. Van Oosten. 1943. International board of inquiry for the Great Lakes fisheries; report and supplement. U. S. Gov't Printing Office, Wash., D. C. 213 pp. *Goode, G. B. 1884. The pike perches. Pages 417-424 i__nThe fisheries and fishery industries of the United States. Section 1, Natural history of useful animals. U. S. Comm. Fish. *Granite, H. R. 1939. The fisheries of Erie, Pennsylvania. Pa. Dept. Fish. 22 pp. (Unpublished report). Greeley, J. R. 1929. Fishes of the Erie-Niagara watershed. Pages 150-179 in A biological survey of the Erie-Niagara system. Suppl. 18th Annual Rep., N. Y. St. Cons. Dept. 1928. 1940. Fishes of the watershed with annotated list. Pages 42-81. A biological survey of the Lake Ontario watershed. Suppl. 29th Annual Rep., N. Y. Cons. Dept. 1939. Harkness, W. J. K. 1936. Biological study of Lake Nipissing. Article 14. Typewritten copy of news item in North Bay (Ontario) Nugget, April 24, 1936. Hartman, Wilbur L. 1970. Resource crises in Lake Erie. Explorer 12(1):6-11. 1972. Lake Erie:Effects of exploitation, environmental changes and new species on the fishery resources. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 29(6):889-912. 1973. Effects of exploitation, environmental changes, and new species on the fish habitats and resources of Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 22. 43 pp. Hile, R. 1936. Summary of investigations on the morphometry of the cisco, Leucichths artedi (LeSueur), in the lakes of the Northeastern Highlands, Wisconsin. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 21:619-634. Hubbs, C. L. 1926. A check list of the fishes of the Great Lakes and tributary' waters, with nomenclatorial notes and analytical keys. Univ. Mich. Mus.Zool., Misc. Publ. 15. 77 pp. *Hubbs, C. L. and K. F. Lagler. 1958. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Revised ed. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. 26. 213 pp. Jordan, D. S. 1877. Scientific description of Ohio fishes. First Annual Report, Ohio State Fish Commission for the years 1875 and 1876. pp. 57-88. 1878. Description of Ohio fishes. Second Annual Report, Ohio State. Fish Commission for the year 1877. pp. 83-91. 'Jordan, D. S., and B. W. Evermann. 1902. American food and game fishes. Doubleday, Page and Co., New York. 572 pp. Jorgensen, C. R. 1974. The discreteness of populations of pickerelS' (Stizostedion sp.) in Lake Nipissing. Ont. Minist. Nat. Resouri' 17 pp. (Unpublished report). Kelley-Willoughby, R. S. 1940. Lake Erie blues. Ohio Conserv. Bull., Div. Nat. Resour. 4(4):1-12. 'Kendall, W. C. 1921. The relationship of the so-called blue pike and yellow pike of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.-50:257-267. Kenyon, R. 1972. Lake Erie changing - but not dying. Part II. Pa. Angler. 41(11):8-11. 1973. Lake Erie changing - but not dying. Part III. Pa. Angler. 42(1):10-13. Keyes, C. M. 1894. The fishing industry of Lake Erie, past and present. U. S. Fish. Comm., Publ. 13:349- 353. Koelz, Walter. 1926. Fishing industry of the Great Lakes. U. S. Comm. Fish. Rep. App. 11, pp. 553-617. Kumlien, Ludwig, and Frederick W. True. 1887. The fishing-grounds of the Great Lakes. Pages 117-131 George Brown Goode, (Ed.), The Fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, Section III, Part D. U. S. Comm. Fish. Ianglois, Thomas H. 1954. The western end of Lake Erie and its ecology. J. W. Edwards Publ., Ann Arbor, Mich. 479 pp. Leach, Glen C. 1927. Artificial propagation of pike perch, and pikes. Dept. of Commerce, Bur. of Fish. Dec. 1018. 27 pp. Lewis, Donald W. 1966. The decline of the Lake Erie commercial fishing industry in Ohio. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio. 212 pp. Martin, W. R. 1949. The mechanics of environmental control of body form in fishes. Univ. Toronto Stud. Biol. Set. 58. Pub1. Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 70:5-75. McAllister, D. E. 1970. Rare or endangered Canadian fishes. Can.Field-Nat. 84(1):5-6. McAllister, D. E. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. A guide to the freshwater sport fishes of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Natural History Series, No. 1, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 89 pp. Meehan, W. E. 1904. A year's work of the fisheries interest in Pennsylvania. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 33:82- 103. 1908. Penn. Dept. of Fisheries (Annual) Report, 1907. 228 pp. 1909. Penn. Dept. of Fisheries (Annual) Report, 1908. 152 pp. 1910. Penn. Dept. of Fisheries (Annual) Report, 1909. 204 pp. 1911. Penn. Dept. of Fisheries (Annual) Report, 1910. C.E. Aughinbaugh, Harrisburg. 148 pp. Moffett, James W. 1954. A research program (for Lake Erie). The Fisherman. Grand Haven, Mich. 22(1):7-14. Moore, H. F. 1894. Lake Erie 1894. Resume of observations by H. F. Moore. Notes by B. L. Hardin. Joint Fisheries Commission. pp. 125 and 201. New York State. Conservation Dept. 1930. 19th Annual Report for 1929. 489 pp. Ohio Conservation Division. 1937. Biennial report of Conservation Division, Dept. of Agric. 73 pp. Ohio Dept. Nat. Res., 1957. Summary-of the Ohio Lake Erie commercial fish catch 1885-1956. Fish Mgr. Sect. 65 pp. Ontario Ministry of Lands and Forests, Annual Reports for 1962, 1960, 1958-59, 1956, 1935-53, 1914-28, 1905-08. (formerly Ontario Dept. of Game and Fisheries in 1914-1962; and the Dominican Fisheries Commission in 1905-1908). Parsons, J.W. 1967. Contributions of year-classes of blue pike to the commercial fishery of Lake Erie, 1943-59. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 24(3):1035-1066. 1970. Walleye fishery of Lake Erie in 1943-62 with emphasis on contributions of the 1942-61 year classes. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:1475-1489. 1972. Life history and production of walleyes of the 1959 year-class in western Lake Erie, 1959-62. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101(4):655-661. Pennsylvania Board of Fish Commissioners. 1929. Biennial report for the period ending May 31, 1928. 103 pp. Pennsylvania Fish Commissioners. 1895. Report of the State Commissionersof fisheries for the years 1892-94. 452 pp. Pennsylvania Fish Commissioners. 1900. Report of the State Commissionersof fisheries for the year 1899. 254 pp. Pratt, George D. 1921. Tenth annual report to the legislature. New York State Conservation Commission. 319 pp. *Radforth, I. 1944. Some considerations on the distribution of fishes in Ontario. Contrib. Royal Ont. Mus. Zool. 25:1-116. Regier, H. A., V. C. Applegate, and R. A. Ryder. 1969. The ecology and management of the walleye in western Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Tech. Rep. 15. 101 pp. Regier, H. A. and W. L. Hartman. 1973. Lake Erie's fish community:150 years of cultural stresses. Science 180(4092):1248-1255. Scott, W. B. 1954. Freshwater fishes of eastern Canada. 2nd Ed., Univ.of Toronto Press. 137 pp. *Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada.Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull. 184. 966 pp. *Sinclair, W. 1961. Taxonomy of Lake Nipissing pike-perch. Ont. Dep. of Lands For. 4 pp. (Unpublished report). Slastenenko, E. P. 1958. The freshwater fishes of Canada. Kiev Printers, Toronto, Ont. 383 pp. Sm/th, Hugh M. 1892. Re~ort on an investigation of the fisheries of Lake Ontario. Bull. U. S. Fish Commission for 1890. Vol. X, pp. 177-215. 1894. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. U. S. Comm. Fish. Rep. for 1892. Part XVIII, pp. 361-462. Sm/th, Hugh M., and Merwin-Marie Snell. 1891. Review of the fisheries of the Great Lakes in 1885. U. S. Fish and Fish Comm. Rept. for 1887, Part 15, pp. 3-333. Sm/th, Stanford H. 1970. Trends in fishery management of the Great Lakes. Pages 107-114 i Norman G. Benson, ed. A century of fisheries in North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 7. 1970. Species interactions of the alewife in the Great Lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(4):754-765. 1972. Factors of ecologic succession in oligotrophic fish co,unities of the Laurent/an Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29(6):717-730. 1972. Research grants for fisheries of the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the first Federal Conference on the Great Lakes, Great Lakes Basin Commission. pp.220-224. Stone, F. L. 1948. The study of the taxonomy of the blue and yellow pikeperches (Stizostedion) of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Rochester, N. Y. 64 pp. Sweeney, Robert A. 1968. The Great Lakes Laboratory of the State University College at Buffalo. Limnos 3(1):13-17. Townsend, C. H. 1899. Report of the division of statistics and methods of the fisheries. U. S. Comm. Fish and Fish. Rept. for 1898, Part XXIV, CXLVII-CLXXV. 1902. Statistics of the fisheries of the Great Lakes. U. S. Comm. Fish and Fish. Rept. for 1901. Part XXIr/I, 575-657. *Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus. 613 pp. True, Frederick W. 1887. The fisheries of the Great Lakes. Pages 631-673 i__n George Brown Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishing industries of the United States, Section II, Part 17. U. S. Comm. Fish and Fish., U. S. Gov't. Printing Office, Washington, D. C. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1911. Fisheries of the United States. 1908. U. S. Gov't. Printing Office, Wash., D. C. 324 pp. U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Great Lakes Fishery statistics 1932-1958. Washington, D. C. U. S. Gov't. Printing Office. (Unnumbered). Van Meter, Harry D., and William F. Shepherd. 1967. Fishery picture changing in Lake Erie:pollution a major factor, survey shows. The conservationist, N. Y. Cons. Dept. 22(2):2-3. *Van Meter, H. D. and M. B. Trautman. 1970. An annotated list of the fishes and its tributary waters exclusive of the Detroit River.of Lake Erie Ohio J. Sci. 70(2):65-78. Van Oosten, John. 1932. Experiments on the mesh of trapnets and legislation of the commercial fisheries of Lake Erie. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 62:100-107. 1932. Experiments on the mesh of trapnets on Lake Erie. The Fisherman, Grand Haven, Mich., 1(12):3-4, 8. 1932. The maximum age of fresh-water fishes. The Fisherman, Grand Haven, Mich., 1(11):3-4. 1936. Lake fisheries facing extermination:disappearance of valuable species causes alarm. The Fisherman, Grand Haven, Mich., 5(11):1,3. 1936. The mortality of fish in Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fisherman 1(3):2,10; 1(4):2-3. Van Oosten, John. 1937. Doom of the Great Lakes fisheries. Am. For. Mag. 43(3):103-105, 144-145. 1937. The Great Lakes fisheries:their proper management for sustained yields. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 66:131-138. 1938. From cisco to perch to pike:the fish by fish account of depletion of the Great Lakes fisheries. State Gov. 11(3):55-57. 1938. The extent of the depletion of the Great Lakes fisheries. Pages 10-17 in Proc. Great Lakes Fish. Conf., Co=nc. State Gov. 1939. Save the Great Lakes fisheries! Outdoor Am. 4(3):4-5,7. 1941. The age and growth of fresh-water fishes. Pages 196-205 in A symposium on hydrobiology. Univ. Wis. Press, Madison. 1943. U. S.-Canadian control to conserve Lake Erie fish supply. The Clevelander 17(10):9-10,24. 1946. The pikes. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Leaflet No. 166, 6 pp. 1948. Turbidity as a factor in the decline of Great Lakes fishes with special reference to Lake Erie. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 75:281-322. 1949. The present status of the United States convnercial fisheries of the Great Lakes. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 14:319-330. ? *Walsh, B. 1955. Blue pike for fishing blues. Pa. Angler. Pa. Fish. Comm. 24(9) :8-9,25. Wakeham, William and R/chard Rathbun. 1897. Report of the Joint Commission relative to the preservation of the fisheries in waters contiguous to Canada and the United States. S. E. Dawson, Ottawa.146 pp. Weed, Alfred C. 1927. Pike, pickerel, and muskellunge. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Dept. of Zoology, Leaflet No. 9, 52 pp., 8 plates. ? Wolfert, D. R. 1969. Maturity and fecundity of walleyes from eastern and western basins of Lake Erie. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26:1877-1888. APPENDIX
BLUE PIKE, CRITICAL HABITAT -- LAKE ERIE
On the following page is a map, diagraming the preliminary definition of blue pike critical habitat. Additional information is being assembled to. further define the critical habitat area. When the recovery Plan is updated, the new critical habitat definition and areas will be included. The current description of critical habitat as related to the drawing is as follows: Principally in the Central Basin from Painesville, Ohio north to the International boundary northeasterly to Silver Creek, New York in the Eastern Basin, including nearly all of Pennsylvania and New York waters of Lake Erie; at depths ranging from 20 to 100 feet in the spring, April - June, and especially during the spawning period in May, and, in the summer at depths from 50 to 150 feet, where free oxygen concentrations may be critically low (less than 4 ppm), and where water temperature usually is less than 70? F. DISTRIBUTION LIST -- DRAFT BLUE PIKE RECOVERY PLAN
In September, 1975, copies of the draft Blue Pike Recovery Plan were sent to the following for review and comments: Regional Director Dr. Milton Trautman U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Museum of Zoology Federal Bldg., Ft. Shelling 2578 Kenny Road Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 Columbus, Ohio 43210 Regional Director Dr. Reeve M. Bailey U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Museum of Zoology John W. McCormack Post Office University of Michigan and Courthouse Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Dr. B. Scott Dr. Howard A. Tanner, Director Reyal Ontario Museum Michigan Department of Dept. of Ichthyology and Natural Resources Herpetology Stevens T. Mason Building Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lansing, Michigan. 48926 M5S 2C6 Dr. Robert W. Tearer, Director Mr. Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr. Ohio Department of Executive Secretary Natural Resources Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fountain Square P.O. Box 640 Columbus, Ohio 43224 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Mr. Herbert E. Doig, Director Mr. John F. Cart Division of Fish & Wildlife Fishery Administrator New York Department of Environ- National Marine Fisheries ~ental Conservation Service 50 Wolf ~oad P.O. Box 648 Albany, New York 12201 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 Mr. ~alph W. Abele Director Executive Director Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory Pennsylvania Fish Co~m~ssion 1451 Green Boad P. O. Box 1673 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Harrisburg, pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Stanford smith Mr. K. K. Irizawa National Marine Fisheries Executive Director Service Ontario Ministry of Natural Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 Resources Whitney Block, 99 Wellesley St. W. Toronto, Ontario, Canada M7A 1W3 DISTRIBUTION LIST-- Cont'd. Mr. Benny Martin State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agriculture Box 985, Federal Square Station Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Mr. Jerry R. Paine Supervisor Lake Erie Fisheries Assessment Unit Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 353 Talbot Street West P. O. Box 40 Aylmer West, Ontario, Canada NSH 2S8 Dr. Bernard Griswold Acting Leader Ohio Cooperative Fishery Research Unit U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio State University 1735 Neil Avenue Columbus, .Ohio 43210 Sandusky Biological Station U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2022 Cleveland Road Sandusky, Ohio 44870 CO~9~ENTS I~CEIVED The draft Recovery Plan has been reviewed by the following and their pertinent comments have been incorporated into this final Plan: Dr. Stanford H. Smith Dr. Joseph Kutkuhn, Director National Marine Fisheries Service Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory P. O. Box 648 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48]05 Mr. Carl E. Parker Ohio Department of Natural Resource: New York Department of Environ- Lake Erie Research Unit mental Conservation P.O. Box 650 50 Wolf Road Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Albany, New York 12201 Dr. Milton Trautman Mr. Benny Martin Museum of Zoology Soil Conservation Service 2578 Kenny Road U. S. Depart~nent of Agriculture Columbus, Ohio 43210 Box 985, Federal Square Station Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Regional Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Herbert Doig, Director John W. McCormack Post Office Division of Fish & Wildlife and Courthouse New York Department of Environ- Boston, Massachusetts 02109 mental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Mr. Edward R. Miller, Director Albany, New York 12201 Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Pennsylvania Fish Commission Dr. Howard Tanner, Director R.D. %1, Box 70 Ohio Depar~w~nt of Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823 Natural Resources Fountain Square Mr. Galen Buterbaugh CD1,_,mhus, Ohio 43224 Associate Regional Director U. S. Fish and wildlife Service Mr. Carlos Fetterolf, Jr. Federal Bldg., Ft. Snelling Executive Secretary Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 Great Lakes Fishery Commission :1451 Green Road Mr. C. E. Faulkner Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Environmental Coordinator U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Bldg., Ft. Shelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 ~ I~CE~V~D '-'- Cont'd. Mr. A. L. NcLain C~reat Lakes Coordinator U. S. ?ish and #ildlife Service Federal Bldg., Ft. Shelling Twin C/t/es, a/nnesota 55111 Dr. B~nard Griswold Acting Leader Ohio Cooperative Fishery ~se~ch ~it U. S. Fish ~d Wildlife ~rvice ~io S~te ~iversity 1735 ~il A~nue ~1~, Ohio 43210 Mr. Pay V&ughn Deputy Pagional Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 17 Execut/ve Park Drive N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30329 |
© 2005-2008 The Native Fish Conservancy