COMMERCIAL FISHERIES NEWSLINE
Vol. XVI, No. 1 - JUNE 1997

by Ronald E. Kinnunen
Michigan State University Sea Grant Program

Abstract: Advisory/extension newsletter for keeping Great Lakes commercial fishing and aquaculture industries informed of relevant regulations, events, opportunities and workshops.
==================================================================

* TABLE OF CONTENTS *

= HACCP Training Courses Scheduled for July in Michigan
= Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations Revised
= Coastwatch Expands to Lake Superior
= Status of Forage Fish Stocks in the Upper Great Lakes
= Siscowet Assessment in Lake Superior
= Prey Consumption by the Burbot Population in Green Bay, Lake Michigan
= Great Lakes Impacts Ruffed out at International Symposium
= Lamprey Marketing in Portugal and Spain
= Michigan Dept. Of Agriculture licenses first Aquaculture Facility
= Great Lakes Fish Health Committee develops Strategic Plan
= Michigan 1996 Commercial Fish Harvest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HACCP Training Courses Scheduled for July in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Seafood HACCP regulation will be mandatory on December 18, 1997. The regulation requires that certain enumerated HACCP functions be performed by an individual who has been trained in HACCP.
     The enumerated functions are:
* Developing/adopting the HACCP plan to fit the specific needs of a processor. The HACCP plan can be of a generic-type.
* Reassessing/modifying the HACCP plan as a result of verification activities and any corrective actions that occur.
* Reviewing the HACCP records for adequacy.

     The HACCP training is achieved through course materials or job experience that provide knowledge equivalent to a standard curriculum course recognized as adequate by FDA. The processors may either obtain training for one or more of their own employees or they may hire trained independent contractors to perform the above functions.
     To assist in the implementation of the mandatory HACCP regulation, Sally Eberhard (FDA), Ron Kinnunen (Michigan Sea Grant Extension), and Mike Erdman (MSU Extension) will conduct two three-day AFDO/Seafood Alliance HACCP training courses. The training is scheduled for July 15-17, 1997 at the Bay Mills Tribal Courtroom in Bay Mills, and July 22-24, 1997 at the MSU Extension Office in Traverse City.

     The training will be given to individuals that can influence seafood and/or aquacultured product safety. It includes a standardized course, training materials, and trained instructors. Persons that complete the AFDO/Seafood Alliance basic course will receive a Certificate of HACCP Course Completion from the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO). This certificate denotes completion of the standard HACCP training program for fish and fishery products as required in the regulation. It is anticipated that a course fee of about $90 will be charged to cover the cost of course materials and coffee breaks. Those that plan to attend the training, please contact Ron Kinnunen at (906) 228-4830.
     The application of HACCP to food was first performed by industry for its own benefit over 30 years ago. Over that time it has become internationally recognized; and its adoption is occurring on a worldwide basis, especially for seafood. Canada has had a mandatory HACCP system in place for seafood for the past few years. The European Union (EU) mandated HACCP for its seafood processors. It now is essentially requiring it of foreign suppliers who ship to the EU. Those who ship to Europe are well aware of this requirement.
     HACCP consists of identifying safety hazards, figuring out where they occur, monitoring those points and recording the results. For most seafood processors there will be fewer than six such points. The mandatory regulation is based on the belief that every processor can understand the food safety hazards of their products and take reasonable steps to keep them from happening.
     For importers, the initiative is based on essentially the same philosophy, that those who import seafood for U.S. consumers can and should take some responsibility for the safety of those products. As with processors, the final regulations have attempted to track what responsible importers already do.
     Setting up and running a HACCP system can involve a certain amount of trial and error and, at times, a new way of looking at things. HACCP involves day-to-day monitoring of critical control points. Production employees operate the equipment at the critical control points. HACCP can give them an enhanced sense of participation and responsibility and a better understanding of what it takes to make a safe product. HACCP is about prevention, not having to throw product away or recondition it or recall it.
     To get the greatest benefit from HACCP we all must see value in it and become committed to it. It’s not something you can take a cram course in. It must evolve and be nurtured and then conveyed by you throughout your organization. HACCP will be your system for those in industry, not a government system. The regulation sets the ground rules but does not provide a lot of detail. There is no single right way.
     One of the first questions that people ask is, “Does this regulation affect me?” Essentially the General Provisions, Subpart A, apply to all processors, both domestic and foreign processors that export to the United States. Specific provisions for importers are also found in Subpart A. Subparts B and C are comprised of special provisions that apply to all types of processors, those that process smoked fish and fish products and those that process raw molluscan shellfish.

There are some key exclusions:
* Fishing vessels are not included, including those that head, gut and freeze, if they do not store the fish on the way back to port.
* Common carriers are not included.
* Retail establishments, including restaurants, are not included.

     However, FDA expects that the regulations will affect many of these entities indirectly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations Revised
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Earlier this year revisions to the Michigan Smoked Fish Regulations were approved. Some of the regulations are reviewed here for your information.

     Brining of fish for smoking shall be carried out so that the temperature of the brine does not exceed 60 degrees F at the start of brining. If the brining time is more than 4 hours, then the brining shall take place in a refrigerated area that is at a temperature of 38F or below immediately after the salting step. Brining tanks shall be cleaned and sanitized before each use. Brines shall not be reused unless there is an adequate process available to return the brine to an acceptable microbiological level.
     All smoking shall be accomplished so that the internal temperature of the coldest part of the fish remains at or above 145F for not less than 30 minutes. Immediately after the thermal process, the smoked fish shall be cooled to a temperature of 38F or below and shall remain at or below that temperature at all times, including through storage, marketing, and sales channels.
     All air-packaged smoked fish shall be processed so that the content in the fish of the water phase salt is not less than 3%. Smoked fish shall not be sold more than 14 days after the date of smoking unless an operator can demonstrate to the director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) that a longer period of time can be achieved that is safe.
     The director of the MDA may grant a variance to a petitioner by modifying or waiving the requirements of these rules if the director is shown that the proposed alternative is equally effective in preventing food safety hazards. All of the following processes require a variance:
     (1) The production of cold process smoked fish.
     (2) Subjecting smoked fish to reduced oxygen packaging.
     (3) The use of additives that reduce the level of, combine within, or replace, in whole or in part the sodium chloride used in the smoked fish product at the required level, such as nitrite, potassium chloride, or any other approved food additive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastwatch Expands to Lake Superior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Coastwatch surface temperature maps will be made available this summer for Lake Superior commercial fishermen via Sea Grant Extension. Using the system we’ve employed successfully on Lakes Michigan and Huron, maps will be faxed directly to designated sites along the Lake Superior shore. These sites in turn will make the maps available to others who need the information. Presently temperature maps are provided on Tuesday and again on Friday, cloud cover permitting.
     In addition to a whole lake view, regional maps will be available. Additionally a series of port maps will be developed which give detailed blowups of the waters.Those with access to the world wide web can contact
http://www.msue.msu.edu/cw
to observe the current temperature maps on their computer. If you need further information on Coastwatch availability, please contact your District Sea Grant Agent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of Forage Fish Stocks in the Upper Great Lakes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     At the recent Great Lakes Fishery Commission meetings fishery biologists from the USGS Biological Resources Division Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Ashland, Wisconsin, presented the following forage fish stock reports for the upper Great Lakes.

LAKE SUPERIOR
     The strengths of the 1977-1994 lake herring year-class in Lake Superior have fluctuated by more than a factor of 2,000. The strongest year-classes were those formed in 1984 and 1988-1990. The 1995 year-class, like the four previous year-classes, was poor lake-wide compared with the strengths of the four strongest year-classes, and little significant recruitment to the fishable stock is expected in future years. However, a multi-aged spawning population has developed in most areas of the lake as the result of maturation of the 1988-1990 year-classes, and continued persistence of the 1984 year-class. Poor recruitment under conditions of large parental stock sizes suggests that environmental conditions are more important to recruitment than total egg deposition.
     Annual biomass estimates for rainbow smelt declined by more than 90% from 1978 to 1981 in U.S. waters. In 1982-1986, biomass increased until it had recovered to about 69% of that measured in 1978. From 1986 to 1994 biomass gradually declined but in 1995 it increased three-fold from 0.7 kg/ha in 1994 to 2.1 kg/ha. In 1996 rainbow smelt biomass declined 67% to a level of 0.7 kg/ha similar to that in the early to mid 1990s. Rainbow smelt biomass in Canadian waters was 2-6 times higher than in U.S. waters in any one year in 1989-1996, but also declined in 1996. Biomass declined from its highest level of 5.4 kg/ha in 1989 to 1.5 kg/ha in 1992, increased dramatically in the next two years, and has declined in the last two years to 2.6 kg/ha from the previous year. The 1994 year-class of smelt was the largest on record for stocks in U.S. and Canadian waters, but the strength of the 1995 year-class was good in Ontario waters but moderate to poor in U.S. waters.

LAKE MICHIGAN
     The biomass of age-1 and older alewife available to the bottom trawls in Lake Michigan during 1996 was 30,000 metric tons, which was similar to the 1995 biomass of 32,000 metric tons. Biomass of age-1 and older bloaters increased from 181,000 metric tons in 1995 to 262,000 metric tons in 1996; this marked the first increase in bloater biomass in Lake Michigan since 1992. Bloater recruitment remained low during 1996, as the catch per unit effort of age-0 bloater averaged only 0.3 fish per 10-min tow. Lakewide biomass of age-1 and older rainbow smelt was estimated at 3,900 metric tons. Thus, the rainbow smelt population biomass, as estimated using bottom trawls, has continued to decline since 1992. Yellow perch reproduction was low for the sixth consecutive year; only nine age-0 yellow perch were caught in trawls. The lakewide biomass estimate for deepwater sculpin increased from 66,000 metric tons in 1995 to 124,000 metric tons in 1996. Abundance of slimy sculpin rose sharply from 36 fish per 10-min tow in 1995 to 93 fish per 10-min tow in 1996. Prior to 1996, slimy sculpin abundance in Lake Michigan had not exceeded 50 fish per 10-min tow since 1981.

LAKE HURON

     Estimated biomass of alewives decreased in 1996 to about 23,000 t and young-of-the-year alewives made up about 15,200 t of the total biomass. This trend indicates another potentially strong year-class in 1996, in addition to those observed in 1994 and 1995. Catches of bloaters were down substantially; biomass was estimated at 19,317 t in 1996 compared to 31,900 t in 1995. This was expected because of the poor recruitment observed in recent years. The 1996 year-class was little larger than in 1995 but remains much smaller than the year-classes that contributed to the population buildup during the 1980s. Adult rainbow smelt also declined in abundance in 1995 and the biomass was estimated at 8,523 t compared to 15,650 t in 1995. However, catches of young-of-the-year rainbow smelt were larger than in 1995 and 1994-1996 YOY catches have been the largest we have seen in recent years. Catches of lake whitefish were similar to those in 1994. Catches of slimy sculpins were lower in 1996 than in 1995, as were catches of ninespine sticklebacks. Biomass of deepwater sculpins was about 1/3 lower than in 1995 and catches of trout-perch increased two-fold.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siscowet Assessment in Lake Superior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Lake Superior Technical Committee (LSTC) coordinated an assessment of siscowet populations in U.S. waters of Lake Superior during 1996. The objectives of the study were to describe the relative and absolute abundance of siscowets, determine food habitats of siscowets, and gather biological information that describes growth, reproduction, and mortality of siscowets. Five agencies conducted graded mesh gill net surveys of siscowets within 10 fathom depth intervals from 0 to 100 fathoms during late June to early July.
     The assessment results indicated that there are 14 siscowet for every lean trout in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior. These siscowet are at times feeding at the water surface as evidenced by birds in some of their stomachs.
     The LSTC agreed to conduct the study again in 1997 primarily during August and September. The number of depth strata will be reduced by making them cover 20 fa intervals instead of 10 fa intervals, and each agency will try to fish deeper than 100 fa. No assessment fishing will be conducted in the 0 fa (0-59 ft.) depth interval in 1997.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prey Consumption by the Burbot Population in Green Bay, Lake Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     A University of Wisconsin Sea Grant team of scientists including Lars Rudstam, Paul Peppard, Thomas Fratt, Richard Bruesewitz, Daniel Coble, Fred Copes, and James Kitchell studied prey consumption by burbot in Green Bay. They estimated prey consumption by burbot based on diet, mortality, growth, maturity, thermal history, population density and a bioenergetics model derived for a similar cold-water gadoid, the Atlantic cod.
     In Green Bay, Lake Michigan, burbot >400 mm fed primarily on fish; smaller burbot probably fed mostly on invertebrates and sculpins. Their calculations indicate that burbot of age ?1 consumed 16 kg/ha of prey (12.2 kg/ha of fish) in 1988 in the Wisconsin waters of Green Bay including 3.3, 2.1, 1.9, 1.2, and 0.8 kg/ha of rainbow smelt, sculpins, alewife, yellow perch, and bloater, respectively. On an areal basis, piscivory by burbot in Green Bay was higher than the reported lake-wide average for consumption by all salmonids in Lake Michigan. Burbot consumed about 25% of the lake-wide salmonid consumption of alewife per unit area and close to the estimated combined commercial and sport harvest of yellow perch in the Bay the same year (271 vs. 325 tons). Thus, burbot should be included when considering the balance between predatory demand and forage fish production in Green Bay and probably also in other areas of Lake Michigan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Impacts Ruffed out at International Symposium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     What do zebra mussels and the North American invasion of the Eurasian ruffe (a small perch-like fish) have in common? Answer: neither will lead to the cataclysmic destruction predicted at the time of their first appearance.

     Zebra mussels are impacting both industry and the environment, but are not having the economic impacts first predicted. The Eurasian ruffe will also certainly have negative impacts on ecosystems it invades, yet results of an International Ruffe Symposium held March 21-23 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offer hope that it may not be as destructive or as costly to the Great Lakes as first predicted. The International Ruffe Symposium, sponsored by the Minnesota and Michigan Sea Grant College programs, brought together scientists from around the world to present results of their ruffe research.
     Surprisingly, many of the research results presented at the symposium failed to show any negative impact on yellow perch populations in lakes where ruffe have invaded or where ruffe are native. Even in the St. Louis River where ruffe are dominant, there is no evidence that yellow perch numbers declined as a result of ruffe, according to Chuck Bronte (U.S. Geological Survey, Ashland, WI). He and his co-authors compared population fluctuations of yellow perch and other native fish species in the St. Louis River to fluctuations of fish populations in a Lake Superior bay with very few ruffe. They found that St. Louis River yellow perch and other fish fluctuations were as likely the result of natural population changes as the result of the presence of ruffe. Colin Adams (University Field Station, Glasgow, Scotland) and Ian Winfield (NERC Institute of Freshwater Ecology, Cumbria, England) studying lakes in the United Kingdom where ruffe have invaded within the last 15 years, also concluded there is no evidence that ruffe have impacted the European perch (a species very similar to our yellow perch). A Russian scientist, Victor Mikheev (A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Moscow) through his review of the Russian literature, concluded that the European perch does not seem to be impacted by ruffe where they naturally coexist. Ray Newman (University of Minnesota, St. Paul) reported on the food preferences of ruffe and other species in two Lake Superior tributaries. Newman's research showed that ruffe and yellow perch generally prefer and consume different food items, although there was some diet overlap.
     Other research presented didn't paint as rosy a picture for yellow perch. Studies conducted in mesocosms (in-lake corrals) and in the laboratory suggest that ruffe may impact yellow perch growth and survival through competition for food and space. Optimism that yellow perch may not decline as much as speculated must be tempered with the knowledge that negative impacts are possible. There will certainly be negative impacts on other fish species, even though they may not be what we consider "valuable" species. To date, the track record of making early predictions regarding the direct or indirect impacts of exotic species has not been good. Therefore, we must not become complacent regarding efforts to restrict the spread of ruffe.
     A concern frequently mentioned in Europe and Asia is that ruffe eat the eggs of coregonid species, fish similar to our lake whitefish and lake herring. The tremendous commercial value of these species in the Great Lakes makes this a concern. Many studies of the food habits of ruffe were presented at the symposium. The principal difference among the studies was the occurrence of fish eggs in the diet. Some researchers found eggs to be very important; others did not. It was not until the end of the symposium that a suggestion for this apparent discrepancy was offered. Vladomir Kovac (Comenius University- Bratislava, Slovakia) in his concluding remarks suggested that egg predation by ruffe may be related to water clarity. Ruffe do not eat eggs in the turbid St. Louis River or the Danube, but do eat eggs in many European lakes with greater water clarity. Although many fish eat the eggs of other fish without causing negative impacts, there is concern regarding the impact of ruffe egg predation on coregonids because ruffe can attain high densities
and they feed more actively in cold water than other fish. Great Lakes coregonids spawn in the fall and their eggs incubate during the winter months making them vulnerable to predation for a relatively long time.

     So what can we do about them? It is unlikely we can stop their spread, although some chemicals may be used in certain circumstances. Michael Boogaard (U.S. Geological Survey, LaCrosse, WI) reported that the lampricide TFM could be used to selectively kill ruffe with limited mortality among nontarget fishes. A review of the U.S. Ruffe Control Program by Thomas Busiahn (Chair of the Ruffe Control Committee, U.S. FWS, Ashland, WI) pointed out some problems encountered when considering the use of toxicants. A plan to slow the spread of ruffe along the South Shore of Lake Superior by using TFM to kill ruffe in tributaries during times when they appear to concentrate failed because of opposition from some management authorities, politicians, and user groups. This demonstrated there is resistance to chemical use, and any proposal to use them in the future will require clear objectives and careful evaluation.
     Ruffe don't seem to be used by humans much, even in their native range. In the former Soviet Union, there was an intense ruffe fishery for feed for domestic animals or fertilizer in the 1940s and 50s, but they were little-used as human food. Some European and Asian soup recipes call for ruffe. Ruffe are boiled to make a soup stock, but then discarded before adding the "good" stuff.
     We learned that ruffe are well-designed as an invasive species and seem especially adapted to dark, turbid, slightly eutrophic environments. Questions remain about how they will fare in less turbid, more oligotrophic areas of the Great Lakes. While we can only keep our fingers crossed that their Great Lakes spread is slow or that they won't display the explosive population growth demonstrated in the St. Louis River, we can take steps to ensure that they aren't carried inland. Boater and angler education is extremely important to restrict their spread inland.
     The bottom line is that even though ruffe do not have a Green Card and as illegal aliens will receive no welfare support, they are here to stay, they are prospering, and they will continue spreading across North America. Unlike the effects of oil spills and pollution, which can be reversed in many cases, ruffe will change our North American fish communities forever. We must close the door to new introductions, because once they get here, they're here for good.

Source: Jeff Gunderson, Minnesota Sea Grant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamprey Marketing in Portugal and Spain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Minnesota Sea Grant Program with funding from the Great Lakes Protection Fund has begun a project to market sea lamprey as food. The project is a demonstration of the viability of marketing Great Lakes sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Portugal and Spain. The sea lamprey is an exotic to the Great Lakes that has proven to be the most environmentally disastrous exotic invader.
     Since 1958, millions of dollars have been spent annually to control Great Lakes sea lamprey. Current lamprey control has been effective in maintaining adequate control of lampreys in most areas of the Great Lakes; however, in some areas of the Great Lakes lampreys (which can each kill up to 40 pounds of fish in their 12 to 18 months in the lake) still annually kill hundreds of thousands of pounds of valuable sport and commercial fish. The St. Marys River which connects Lakes Superior and Huron has an especially large population of lampreys which has been difficult to control. So even though the lamprey in the Great Lakes have been the focus of a large control effort for over 35 years, there still remain significant populations of lamprey in the Great Lakes that could be harvested.

     Sea lamprey are considered a culinary delicacy in parts of Europe where live lamprey can cost more than 50 U.S. dollars per kilo. Traditional fishing methods and habitat loss have contributed to lamprey declines. Consequently the demand for lamprey exceeds supply. In the spring of 1994, six live lamprey from the Great Lakes were air-freighted to Portugal. It was determined that the Great Lakes sea lamprey is the same species that is considered a delicacy by the Portuguese. Organic contaminant levels were also analyzed and found to be acceptable for interstate commerce and export to the European Union.
     The number of lamprey able to survive the 48 hour air shipment to Portugal was determined by experimentation prior to the first shipment. Then 85 lamprey were sent to Portugal in two shipments. The lamprey sent to Portugal were taste-tested in consumer panels, restaurants, and in homes. Lamprey were also smoked, prepared in 4 different recipes and served to a consumer taste panel in Duluth, Minnesota.
     It was determined that 8 to 9 lamprey could be shipped in 24 quart coolers, packed in double plastic bags filled with two gallons of water, five pounds of ice, 0.5% salt, and then filled with oxygen.The results of the Duluth taste test demonstrated that lamprey can be acceptable to American palates with the proper recipe. Lamprey stew served over garlic mashed potatoes, an original recipe, rated 4.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 = awful and 5 = delicious). Traditional Portuguese recipes were not rated very highly by the Duluth consumer panel, however. Smoked lamprey were rated 3.7.
     Great Lakes sea lamprey were well received in Portugal. Consumer panelists rated the lamprey prepared in traditional Portuguese recipes 4.7. Restaurant clientele rated the lamprey 4.0 and families preparing lamprey at home rated the lamprey 4.5. Great Lakes sea lamprey had a stronger "turf" taste (the traditional lamprey flavor) and were less soft and fatty than Portuguese lamprey. The smaller size of Great Lakes lamprey was not a problem.
     The next step will be to conduct a mail survey of Portuguese consumers, conduct further market tests in Portugal and initiate a market test in Spain. The potential to market lamprey to North American Portuguese populations and other ethnic groups that consider lamprey a delicacy will also be evaluated. Additional analysis of organic contaminants and heavy metals will be conducted on edible lamprey and on lamprey eggs. Discussions with appropriate management agencies will be initiated to examine the commercial potential of lamprey and to explore how lamprey can be commercialized without jeopardizing current lamprey control and research efforts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Department of Agriculture Licenses First Aquaculture Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) licensed the first aquaculture facility as a result of the Michigan Aquaculture Development Act. The Act now gives the MDA jurisdiction over aquaculture in Michigan. The Michigan Aquaculture Advisory Committee whose efforts were led by Bob Baldwin, President of the Michigan Aquaculture Association, helped develop the framework of the Act. In fact the Act was so well written that it won an award from the Michigan Bar Association for its clarity.
     In a recent ceremony the MDA licensed Seafood Systems, Inc. of Okemos and aquaculture became the 121st agriculture commodity in Michigan. Russ Allen, President of Seafood Systems, brings to Michigan 20 years of experience creating shrimp farms in Equador, Belize, and other Latin American countries. Allen hopes to develop commercial shrimp production in Michigan. In 1994 the U.S. trade deficit in seafood amounted to more than $3.5 billion, with shrimp accounting for more than $2.6 billion.

     Seafood Systems’, Inc. experimental facility is a self-contained system which is a major improvement over systems that have caused pollution and degradation of coastal swamps and estuaries. Solid waste is filtered out of shrimp-growing tanks and disposed of as fertilizer and the saltwater is filtered and recirculated. The shrimp will be sold when they are about 6 inches long and 6 to 9 months old.
     This winter Allen plans to build a full-scale pilot facility and start shrimp production tests next spring. A goal is to eventually build large shrimp farms in Gratiot and Montcalm counties which are classified as renaissance zones. These shrimp farms will be complete with a hatchery, shrimp-growing facilities, processing plant and distribution system that could handle 50 million pounds of shrimp a year.
     Dan Wyant (MDA Director) strongly feels that the aquaculture industry has a future in Michigan. Russ Allen indicated that the passage of the Michigan Aquaculture Development Act made all the difference in encouraging entrepreneurs such as himself to get into the aquaculture business. Since the Act was passed the MDA has hired Darwin Stith as the state aquaculture veterinarian in the Animal Industry Division.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Fish Health Committee Develops Strategic Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The Great Lakes Fish Health Committee has finally completed and accepted a strategic plan. The plan provides guidelines and goals for the committee for the future.
     The use of advanced technologies in the fish health field has received national attention with more pathogens being detected by highly specific methods. The fish health committee has written a request to the American Fisheries Society Fish Health Section for the development of a committee to develop a unified means of incorporating these new methods and technologies into Great Lakes management programs. They also requested that other disease control compacts also be included in the development of this program.
     EEDv -- It has now been approximately nine years since the last disease episode of EEDv. The committee has not made any headway into the development of a diagnostic tool and the possibility for it to occur in the near future is dim; therefore the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee wishes to revise last year’s statement to read: FOR LAKE TROUT and CHAR ONLY. The GLFHC recognizes that a diagnostic tool for EEDv is not currently available and may not be developed in the near term. However, the Committee believes the risk of transferring EEDv between member agencies to be minimal when the transfer involves surface disinfected eggs from domesticated broodstock sources. Eggs collected from wild stocks can be transferred into facilities within the basin only if they have been surface disinfected and held in quarantine or isolation until such time that the progeny can be stress tested to determine if EEDv is present. The Committee believes this action is justified because no outbreaks have occurred in the last nine years, and they know what species can be infected and the development of a diagnostic tool is not in the near future. They will continue to try to interest researchers into tackling this problem and the pursuit for a diagnostic tool.
     Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) continues to be a problem in Lake Michigan production facilities. The malady primarily affects coho salmon. Treatments with thiamine appear to be successful in treating the clinical signs and increasing survival but the fish are needing more treatments than last year.
     Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD) control efforts continue at all production facilities. There are some new efforts in the development of vaccines for the control of this bacterium which the Committee fully supports.
     Whirling Disease — New York has completed some research on strain susceptibility to Myxobolus. Domestic rainbow trout and Salmon river steelhead were found to be more resistant than wild Finger Lake rainbow trout. No new sites of Myxobolus infection have been found and all state hatcheries remain negative for Myxobolus cerebralis.

     The Committee continues work with the private sector with their main efforts being to get them more involved in the process and deliberations of the committee. A letter will be sent to the aquaculture associations of each state and province explaining their role and function.
     The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is amending the Canadian Fish Health Protection Regulations. The changes include: 1) Allow the importation of fish infected with certain disease agents provided that the disease agent will not be harmful to the conservation and protection of fish in the receiving province, 2) Allow treated eggs to be imported from facilities that have only been inspected for viruses or are known to be positive for the named bacterial and parasitic agents and 3) A review process will be established that will enable proponents to appeal decisions regarding import requests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIGAN 1996 COMMERCIAL FISH HARVEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The following tables are a summary of the 1996 commercial fish harvest from Michigan waters. This information was compiled from data supplied by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, the Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program regulated by COTFMA (Bay Mills, Soo Tribe, and Grand Traverse) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (Bad River, Keweenaw Bay, and Red Cliff Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians). It should be noted that the treaty commercial harvest figures for Lake Superior are a total of all the tribes, while those for Lakes Huron and Michigan are Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program regulated by COTFMA.

TABLE 1. LAKES ERIE AND HURON

1996 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds) in Michigan Waters of Lakes Erie and Huron

TABLE 2. LAKE SUPERIOR

1996 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds) in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior

TABLE 3. LAKE MICHIGAN

1996 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest (pounds) in Michigan Waters of Lake Michigan

TABLE 4. 1996 Total Reported Commercial Fish Harvest

(Pounds and dockside dollar value) in Michigan Waters of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie Combined

TABLE 5

Pounds of Chinook and Coho Salmon harvested from Michigan weirs,Lakes Michigan and Huron during the fall of 1993-1996