Introduction
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) are a native top predator in the Great Lakes that were nearly extirpated in Lake Michigan by the mid-20th century due to overfishing and invasive sea lamprey. Decades of intensive restoration – including stocking and fishing restrictions – have been undertaken to rebuild Lake Michigan’s lake trout population. Currently, Wisconsin prohibits commercial harvest of lake trout in Lake Michigan, reserving the species for sport fishing. However, proposals have emerged to allow commercial fishermen to keep and sell lake trout caught incidentally (as “bycatch”) in other fisheries. This report analyzes why commercial lake trout fishing should remain prohibited. It examines the legal and policy background, experiences from other Great Lakes, economic considerations, and scientific conservation factors. The goal is to provide evidence and counterarguments to any justification for opening a commercial lake trout fishery, thereby reinforcing the rationale for continued protection of Lake Michigan’s recovering lake trout.
1. Legal and Policy Precedents
Historical Policies in the Great Lakes: State and international policies in the Great Lakes have long recognized the need to protect gamefish like lake trout from overharvest. After the collapse of many native fish stocks (including lake trout) mid-century, management shifted to prioritize recreational fisheries over commercial exploitation ([PDF] Daniel R. Talhelm, Michigan State University) (Anglers upset by Michigan bill to permit commercial harvest). Many species were explicitly designated as sport fish and off-limits to commercial fishing. For example, Michigan historically banned commercial harvest of lake trout, walleye, smallmouth bass, and other game fish – these species have “historically been banned from commercial harvest” in the state (Anglers upset by Michigan bill to permit commercial harvest). In the 1960s, Michigan even banned the use of gill nets by state-licensed commercial fishers after research showed gill nets were unselective and destructive to gamefish populations (State of Michigan, DNR Release Questionable FAQ Document …). This reflected a policy choice to curb commercial practices that threaten sport fish recovery.
Wisconsin and Lake Michigan: In Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan, commercial fishing for lake trout has been prohibited for decades as a conservation measure (Effect of Rewards on Lake Trout Tag Returns in Northwestern Lake …). Wisconsin’s commercial fishing regulations require any accidentally caught lake trout to be released rather than kept or sold (Effect of Rewards on Lake Trout Tag Returns in Northwestern Lake …). In other words, there is currently no legal targeted or incidental commercial harvest of lake trout – they have been managed strictly as a sport species. This longstanding rule was put in place to protect the fragile recovering population. Even tribal commercial fishing does not occur on Lake Michigan’s Wisconsin side – “there are no current tribal commercial fisheries in the Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan.” ([PDF] Maritime Cultural Landscapes at Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast … – NET). All harvest is effectively allocated to recreational anglers and charter operators under state supervision.
Interstate Agreements and Management Frameworks: Lake Michigan’s fishery is managed cooperatively by the bordering states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana) often in coordination with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The GLFC was established by a 1954 U.S.-Canada treaty to coordinate Great Lakes fisheries management (Great Lakes Fishery: Commercial vs. recreational conflict), and it facilitates interagency agreements on species like lake trout. Through lake-specific committees, the states set shared rehabilitation goals. For instance, the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (a multi-jurisdictional agreement) emphasizes sustainable harvest and restoration of native species. Lake trout rehabilitation plans agreed upon by the Lake Michigan Committee of the GLFC called for stocking, sea lamprey control, and harvest restrictions to rebuild self-sustaining populations ([PDF] Lake Trout Monitoring in Lake Michigan: 2023 Spring and Fall …). These plans implicitly prioritized recovery over short-term commercial gain, given the species’ near-extinct status by the 1950s. In fact, historical records show intensive commercial fishing (along with invasive lampreys) drove lake trout into collapse in Lake Michigan ([PDF] Legal Documents of the – Great Lakes Fishery Commission), leading to a consensus that commercial pressure had to be eliminated to allow recovery.
Current Policy Discussions: As lake trout numbers have improved in recent years, there have been some proposals to relax rules. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2024 began exploring a limited commercial “bycatch” allowance for lake trout caught during the whitefish fishery (so that a small percentage of incidental catch could be kept). This rule-making process has sparked debate, and so far it remains only a proposal ([PDF] Notice of Preliminary Hearing on Statement of Scope – Wisconsin DNR) (Hearing and comment period set on potential Lake Michigan …). Notably, public input has been overwhelmingly against opening any commercial lake trout fishery. In Wisconsin’s Spring 2024 conservation survey, 7,516 respondents across the state answered “No” to the question: “Would you support a commercial fishery for lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan?” (Commercial Fishing for Lake Trout Receives Little Support). This strong public opposition – by a wide margin – aligns with the long-standing policy precedent of protecting lake trout for sport angling. It sends a clear message that citizens and anglers expect lake trout to remain a sport-managed species, as has been the case for decades.
Summary: Legally, the groundwork in Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states has been to prohibit commercial lake trout harvest in Lake Michigan. This stance is backed by historical experience (collapse of the species under commercial overharvest) and formal management priorities that value the recreational fishery. Any deviation from this precedent would be a significant policy shift, contradicting past agreements and public expectations. The onus would be on proponents to prove that circumstances have so fundamentally changed that commercial harvest would not jeopardize the resource – a high bar given the past. As the following sections show, neither the experiences on other lakes, the economics, nor the science support such a change.
2. Impacts of Commercial Fishing on Other Great Lakes
It is instructive to examine how commercial lake trout fishing (where it occurs) has affected fish populations, sport fishing, and ecosystems in other Great Lakes. Lake Superior provides a key case study, as it’s the one Great Lake where lake trout have fully recovered and where limited commercial harvest is permitted under strict controls.
Lake Superior – A Cautionary Model: Lake Superior’s lake trout population has rebounded to self-sustaining levels, but this success required decades of careful management. Even now, lake trout in Superior are managed very conservatively to avoid backsliding. Commercial harvest of lake trout in Wisconsin and Michigan waters of Lake Superior is only allowed as strictly limited bycatch to the whitefish fishery ([PDF] Scope statement template with guidance). In practice, Lake Superior’s state-licensed commercial fishery for lake trout is “regulated as a bycatch fishery”, with specific lake trout quotas determined by scientific catch-at-age models ([PDF] Lake Superior Lake Trout Management). This means that even in a lake where lake trout are abundant, managers do not allow an unrestricted commercial fishery – it’s kept tightly within sustainable limits. If Lake Michigan were to ever consider commercial harvest, it would likely have to mimic such a highly constrained approach (and Lake Michigan’s population is not nearly as robust as Superior’s yet).
Moreover, Superior has shown that balancing commercial and sport interests is challenging. Fisheries agencies there explicitly acknowledged the need to reduce friction between user groups. For example, Minnesota’s Lake Superior management allowed both commercial and sport lake trout fishing, but it took measures “to reduce potential conflict between sport and commercial fishers” ([PDF] Lake Trout Rehabilitation in the Minnesota Waters of Lake Superior …). Such measures included separate zones or seasons for commercial nets to minimize interference with anglers. Despite these efforts, tensions can still arise if anglers perceive that commercial operations are depleting fish or hindering their catch rates. The existence of conflict-mitigation policies highlights that sport vs. commercial competition is a real issue wherever both occur.
Tribal Commercial Fishing and Sport Fishing Conflicts: In parts of the Great Lakes, particularly Michigan waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan, tribal commercial fisheries for lake trout and whitefish operate under court-mediated agreements (the 1836 Treaty Consent Decree). These agreements carefully allocate harvest between tribal commercial fishers and recreational anglers to protect the resource. The very fact that a federal decree is needed “governs the balance between recreational and tribal commercial fishing of lake trout and whitefish” in those waters (Angling, conservation organizations file motion to intervene in …) shows how delicate that balance is. When allocations or practices are perceived as inequitable or harmful to the stock, conflict ensues. In recent years, angling and conservation organizations in Michigan have even taken legal action to ensure the new tribal-state agreements do not overly favor commercial gill-netting of lake trout at the expense of sport fishing opportunities (Angling, conservation organizations file motion to intervene in …). This underscores a key point: introducing or expanding commercial lake trout fishing often ignites user group conflicts, as each side (commercial and recreational) competes for a limited resource.
Impacts on Fish Populations and Ecology: Historically, heavy commercial fishing pressure was a major factor (alongside invasive species) in the decline of lake trout and other native fishes in Lakes Michigan and Huron ([PDF] Legal Documents of the – Great Lakes Fishery Commission). When too many lake trout were removed by commercial nets in the early 1900s-1950s, the population crashed, leading to ecological imbalance (e.g. explosive growth of alewife prey fish, disrupted food webs) until predators were reintroduced. This lesson has informed modern policy: managers are wary of repeating the overharvest scenario. Even on Lake Superior, where lake trout are abundant, total harvest (sport + commercial) is capped to protect spawning stocks ([PDF] A Lake Trout Restoration Plan for Lake Superior). A Lake Superior restoration plan noted that continued success “will require prudent regulation of sport- and commercial-fishery harvests” along with lamprey control ([PDF] A Lake Trout Restoration Plan for Lake Superior). In other words, even a recovered lake trout population can be overfished if not carefully regulated. Lake trout are long-lived, slow-maturing fish; they can only sustain low exploitation rates. If commercial harvest isn’t extremely limited, it can quickly remove the larger, older trout that are critical for reproduction, as was seen in the past.
One specific ecological concern is bycatch – the unintentional capture of non-target species in commercial gear. Lake trout frequently turn up as bycatch in Great Lakes commercial fisheries targeting other species. For instance, in Lake Huron’s Canadian waters, studies found that lake trout were the principal bycatch species in both trap nets and gillnets set for lake whitefish ([PDF] Comparison of Catch and Lake Trout Bycatch in Commercial Trap …). This indicates that whenever nets are in waters inhabited by lake trout, significant numbers of trout can be caught incidentally. If those fish are not released (or do not survive release), this mortality can impact the population. Lake Michigan’s situation today is that commercial whitefish trap-netters do catch some lake trout bycatch, but since they can’t keep them, there is an incentive for fishers to avoid trout-heavy areas. If rules change to allow keeping them, fishers might pay less attention to avoiding trout, potentially increasing the overall catch (and kill) of lake trout beyond what occurs now as true incidental bycatch. This dynamic was seen in other fisheries where relaxing bycatch rules led to a de facto targeted fishery.
Lessons from Other Lakes: The other Great Lakes (Huron, Erie, Ontario) also underscore caution. Lake trout are still in recovery phases in those lakes and generally are not subject to new commercial fisheries. For example, Lake Huron’s lake trout are co-managed with limited tribal commercial quotas, but broad commercial harvest is not pursued because the populations are not fully restored. Lakes Erie and Ontario have minimal lake trout populations and are mainly focusing on restoration. In short, no Great Lake besides Superior has a fully recovered lake trout stock, and thus none have a thriving open commercial fishery for them. The experiences on Superior (strict bycatch limits, conflict management) suggest that even if Lake Michigan’s trout improve, any commercial take would have to be extremely conservative and closely monitored – and it would still risk rekindling sport-vs-commercial conflicts. Given Lake Michigan’s heavy use as a sport fishery, introducing commercial competition for lake trout could replicate the tensions seen elsewhere, or worse, undermine the collaborative interstate management that has been in place to rehabilitate the species.
3. Economic Comparisons: Sport Fishing vs. Commercial Fishing
From an economic perspective, Lake Michigan’s lake trout are far more valuable on a fishing line than in a commercial net. Sport fishing and commercial fishing contribute to the economy in very different magnitudes when it comes to trout and salmon species. Here we compare the economic impacts, including revenue, jobs, and related benefits, of the recreational fishery versus a hypothetical commercial lake trout fishery.
Recreational Fishing Economic Impact: Recreational angling on the Great Lakes is a multi-billion-dollar industry. According to a 2023 study commissioned by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, recreational fishing in the Great Lakes is worth about $5.1 billion annually (Report: Great Lakes recreational fishing worth billions to economy …). This includes direct spending on trips (charters, bait, fuel, lodging, etc.), as well as indirect and induced economic effects. The Great Lakes sport fishery (all species) also supports tens of thousands of jobs across the region – the GLFC estimates over 75,000 jobs are tied to Great Lakes fisheries, with the vast majority linked to recreational fishing and tourism (The Fishery – Great Lakes Fishery Commission). In the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes, recreational fishing has eclipsed commercial fishing in economic importance. For example, in Michigan alone, recreational fishing generates around $2.3 billion in economic activity per year ([PDF] Great Lakes Angler Diary – Michigan Sea Grant), whereas the commercial fishing industry is just a tiny fraction of that.
Focusing on Lake Michigan and Wisconsin: The lake’s sport fishery draws anglers from across the Midwest who spend money on charter fishing trips, fishing licenses and stamps, boats and equipment, hotel stays, restaurants, and more. Wisconsin coastal communities (Port Washington, Sheboygan, Sturgeon Bay, Kenosha, and many others) benefit from this tourism. While specific dollar figures for lake trout alone are hard to isolate (anglers often catch multi-species), trout and salmon together form the backbone of the Lake Michigan sport fishery. Anglers are willing to pay a premium for the opportunity – a Wisconsin Sea Grant study found a Great Lakes angler would spend on the order of $140 for a successful Lake Michigan fishing trip (e.g., catching desired species like trout) (Wisconsin Sea Grant documents value of recreational fishing in …), illustrating the high per-trip value of the sport. These expenditures translate into tax revenue (sales taxes, income taxes from jobs supported, etc.) and fund state conservation via license sales. Importantly, anglers also pay a Great Lakes Trout and Salmon Stamp fee in Wisconsin, which directly supports trout/salmon stocking and management – a funding mechanism that depends on prioritizing recreational fishing.
Commercial Fishing Economic Impact: In contrast, the commercial fishing industry on Lake Michigan is relatively small and economically modest – and virtually none of it currently involves lake trout. In Wisconsin waters, there are only about a dozen licensed commercial fishing businesses operating on Lake Michigan (Commercial Fishing on the Great Lakes is a Family Affair – Marine Link), primarily family-run operations targeting whitefish and some perch or chubs. These businesses do provide local employment and fresh fish for markets, but their scale is tiny compared to the recreational sector. If lake trout were opened to commercial harvest, it would not create a new industry from scratch; it would simply give these few existing operations another species to sell. The incremental revenue would be minimal. To illustrate: Lake trout wholesale (dockside) prices are roughly on the order of $2–3 per pound. If, say, a few thousand pounds per year per business could be landed (which itself would be tightly capped), we are talking on the order of maybe tens of thousands of dollars in revenue spread across the entire fishery – essentially a rounding error in the context of the sport fishing economy. Historical data also show the limited scale of Great Lakes commercial fisheries: at their modern peak in the late 1970s, the total landed value of Great Lakes commercial fish (all species, all lakes) was about $25 million (with a broader economic impact of ~$160 million) ([PDF] Daniel R. Talhelm, Michigan State University). Even then, that was a small fraction compared to recreational fishing’s economic footprint. Today, with fewer commercial licenses and lower catch levels, the economic output of state-licensed Great Lakes commercial fishing remains modest.
In Wisconsin, any commercial lake trout harvest would be further constrained by quotas to protect the population, which in turn limits the revenue potential. By design, it would be a “bycatch” fishery with low allowable take. Meanwhile, allowing commercial harvest could have negative economic ripple effects by impacting the sport fishery: if anglers see fewer trout or lower catch rates because more fish are being netted, they might fish less or go elsewhere, reducing tourism dollars. The trade-off is clearly lopsided – one lake trout caught by a recreational angler might be worth hundreds of dollars in local spending (trip costs, etc.), whereas that same fish netted for commerce might fetch only a few dollars in profit for a commercial fisher. Economists have noted this imbalance and fisheries managers often allocate species to the sector that produces greater economic value. That is why species like walleye and lake trout have been reserved for sport in many Great Lakes states; as one analysis put it, commercial fishers remove far more fish biomass while contributing far less economically, compared to sport anglers (A big fight in Lansing over fishing rules on the Great Lakes) (Michigan’s commercial fishing industry fear state bills –).
Taxpayer Costs – Enforcement and Management: Another economic aspect is the cost of managing and enforcing a commercial lake trout fishery. Introducing a new commercial harvest (even if small) means the DNR would need to monitor commercial catches, enforce limits, and possibly conduct more frequent surveys to assess impacts. This can include on-board observers or patrols to ensure compliance with bycatch rules, dockside checks of catches, and expanded data analysis to set safe quotas. All of this has a cost in terms of staff time and equipment. With such a limited number of commercial participants, the fees collected from them (license fees, etc.) likely would not cover the additional management costs, effectively putting taxpayers or other funded programs on the hook. In Michigan’s recent regulatory discussions, officials pointed out that the commercial licensing fees (which were very low for decades) did not come close to covering the state’s cost to manage the fishery, prompting proposals to raise those fees substantially (Michigan’s commercial fishing industry fear state bills –). The situation would be similar in Wisconsin – unless license fees were dramatically increased, a new lake trout commercial provision could be a net loss financially for the state.
Additionally, any overharvest or population setback caused by commercial fishing would jeopardize the millions of dollars already invested in lake trout rehabilitation. Wisconsin (in cooperation with federal agencies) spends significant funds on raising and stocking lake trout. For example, in 2021 about 2.66 million juvenile lake trout were stocked into Lake Michigan, at an estimated cost of $8.20 per fish ([PDF] DRAFT LAKE MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL FISHING … – Wisconsin DNR). This investment (over $20 million worth of fish stocked that year) is done to rebuild a public natural resource for long-term ecological and recreational benefit. Allowing those publicly funded fish to be caught for a small private commercial gain raises economic fairness questions. Essentially, should Wisconsin divert a fish that taxpayers paid ~$8 apiece to rear into a commercial market where it might bring $2–$3, instead of leaving it in the lake to contribute to the wild breeding population or to a recreational catch worth far more in tourism? The return on investment clearly lies with keeping lake trout in the water for anglers and ecosystem health, not selling them at a loss on the docks.
Summary: All economic indicators show that sport fishing for lake trout far outweighs any potential commercial fishery in value. Sport fishing drives tourism, jobs, and funding for resource management, whereas a commercial fishery would be small, low-revenue, and costly to regulate. The economic justification for maintaining lake trout as a recreational-only species is very strong. In fact, this rationale has underpinned policy decisions in multiple states – it’s simply smart economics to keep a $5 billion industry (recreation) thriving rather than risk it for a few more dollars of commercial catch. Any argument that a commercial fishery would significantly benefit the economy does not hold up to scrutiny or existing data. On the contrary, shifting even a portion of lake trout harvest to commercial use could reduce the much larger economic benefits that come from recreational fishing.
4. Scientific and Conservation Considerations
From a biological and conservation standpoint, keeping lake trout off-limits to commercial harvest remains the prudent strategy. Lake Michigan’s lake trout population, while improved from its lowest point, is not yet fully recovered or self-sustaining, and it faces ongoing challenges. Wisconsin DNR studies and other research highlight several key points regarding population recovery, sustainability, and risks associated with commercial harvest.
Population Recovery Status: Lake trout in Lake Michigan are still in a recovery phase. The ultimate management goal is to establish a self-sustaining population (i.e. one that reproduces naturally at a level that can maintain the stock without continued stocking). This goal “has been unmet for decades” ([PDF] Lake Trout Monitoring in Lake Michigan: 2023 Spring and Fall …). While there have been encouraging signs in recent years – such as increased natural reproduction in some areas – the recovery is inconsistent. A recent binational study noted that wild (naturally reproduced) lake trout are increasing in the southern portion of Lake Michigan but remain weak in the northern waters (Lake Trout Recovering in Southern Lake Michigan, Face …). In other words, certain spawning reefs (like those near Lake Michigan’s southern basin) are seeing more wild young trout, but in many traditional northern refuges, the stocked fish are not yet repopulating themselves at sustainable levels. This uneven recovery means the overall lake population still relies heavily on stocking by management agencies to boost numbers. Given this reality, any additional source of mortality (like commercial harvest) could undermine the fragile gains made so far. It’s notable that after 60+ years of restoration efforts, Lake Michigan has not reached the self-replenishing trout populations that Lake Superior now enjoys. Thus, conservation biologists urge caution – the job is only partly done, and introducing a new harvest pressure could slow or reverse progress.
Sustainability and Harvest Pressure: Lake trout have a slow life history. They can live decades (20+ years) and don’t reach maturity for 6-7 years or more. This means populations recover slowly and can be easily overfished if harvest rates are even moderately high. Management agencies set very conservative harvest limits for lake trout in Lake Michigan’s sport fishery – for instance, Wisconsin’s daily bag limits and season lengths for anglers are designed to keep total annual harvest within safe bounds. If a commercial fishery were introduced, managers would have to deduct that harvest from the allowable total, likely forcing tighter limits on sport anglers to compensate. Essentially, every pound of lake trout allocated to commercial catch is a pound not available to the recreational side if sustainability is to be maintained. The question arises: is it worth reallocating some of that limited sustainable harvest away from the sport fishery (with all its economic and social benefits) to a commercial use? The scientific consensus tends to say no, especially until the population is fully recovered.
Furthermore, the risk with a commercial fishery is that enforcement or compliance issues could lead to overharvest. While sport fishing harvest is relatively easy to estimate and control (through creel surveys and creel limits), commercial harvest would rely on accurate catch reporting and quota adherence. History has examples where commercial overfishing (sometimes illegal/unreported catch) contributed to stock collapses. Wisconsin DNR and Great Lakes researchers remain concerned that even a “limited” commercial fishery for lake trout could, if not perfectly managed, result in excessive removal of breeding-age trout. Bycatch mortality is a particular worry. In trap nets (the primary gear used for whitefish in Wisconsin), some lake trout can be released alive. But if commercial retention is allowed, those fish would not be released; they’d be kept and killed. Moreover, it might encourage more use of gill nets by some operators if allowed, since gill nets are very effective at catching trout. Gill nets, however, kill virtually every trout caught and also pose higher bycatch risks for other species. Michigan’s experience proved this – one reason Michigan moved away from gill nets in the 20th century was the high lake trout bycatch and mortality (State of Michigan, DNR Release Questionable FAQ Document …). In short, introducing any gill net effort for lake trout in Lake Michigan would be a biological step backward. Wisconsin currently uses mostly trap nets in Lake Michigan, but if lake trout became legal to sell, there might be pressure to allow gillnets to increase efficiency, which would be problematic.
Bycatch and Ecosystem Risks: Even if a commercial lake trout fishery is billed as “bycatch-only” (meaning fishers wouldn’t intentionally target trout, only keep those caught while targeting whitefish), the lines can blur. Fishermen might adjust where and how they fish to incidentally catch more trout once there’s value in them. This is a classic issue in fisheries management: today’s bycatch can become tomorrow’s target once regulations change. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has studied bycatch patterns; as noted earlier, lake trout are the main bycatch in many Great Lakes whitefish fisheries ([PDF] Comparison of Catch and Lake Trout Bycatch in Commercial Trap …). Allowing retention could remove the current incentive fishers have to avoid trout-heavy areas, thus increasing overall trout catch beyond the status quo. It’s also worth noting that lake trout are a predator; if more adult predators are removed, it can have cascading effects on the ecosystem, potentially allowing prey species (like alewife or smelt) to overpopulate or, conversely, if alewife numbers are already low, reducing trout could lead to other imbalances such as booming invertebrate populations. Lake Michigan’s food web is currently in flux (with invasive quagga mussels altering nutrient flows and prey fish at record lows ([PDF] 1 Status and Trends of Pelagic and Benthic Prey Fish Populations in …)), so scientists advise against adding additional stressors right now. Maintaining a strong predator population (including lake trout) is actually seen as beneficial for controlling invasive prey fish and balancing the system.
Wisconsin DNR Findings: The Wisconsin DNR’s assessments of Lake Michigan echo these concerns. While the DNR has cautiously floated the idea of a bycatch allowance, it has also acknowledged the need to proceed based on science and not jeopardize the lake trout recovery. In internal discussions, DNR staff highlighted that the current incidental catch of lake trout in commercial nets is relatively low – on the order of only a few percent of the total catch when targeting whitefish. This suggests that most commercial fishers are successfully avoiding lake trout concentrations (because they cannot profit from them under current rules). The argument some have made – that lots of lake trout are being caught and wasted – is not strongly supported by the data; the numbers are small. Thus, the biological “waste” being cited as justification to allow retention is likely minimal, whereas the potential for increased mortality if rules change is significant. The DNR has also noted that lake trout restoration in Lake Michigan has taken enormous effort and that they remain cautious about any changes that could increase trout mortality (including bycatch allowances for commercial fishing). Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan fisheries biologists, together with their federal and other state counterparts, conduct annual surveys (spring and fall) to gauge lake trout abundance and spawning success. These surveys inform harvest limits. Until those surveys show that natural reproduction is consistently meeting targets and that fishing mortality (from sport fishing alone) is well below safe thresholds, adding commercial take would erode the built-in buffer that has been helping the population grow.
Conservation Principles: A fundamental conservation principle at play is the precautionary approach. When there is uncertainty about the impacts of a new harvest on a recovering population, it is wiser to err on the side of caution and not allow it. Lake trout live in a complex, changing environment. Unexpected issues (disease outbreak, invasive species impacts, climate-driven habitat shifts) could still threaten their comeback. Keeping one major pressure – commercial harvest – at zero gives managers more leeway to respond to other challenges without causing a population downturn. Once a commercial fishery is opened, it can be politically difficult to scale back even if the stock shows decline (jobs and livelihoods come into play). It is easier to keep regulations restrictive now until lake trout are unequivocally recovered (e.g., multiple generations of wild spawning sustaining the fishery). We are not at that point yet in Lake Michigan.
Additionally, lake trout in Lake Michigan are the product of a multi-agency restoration program. Halting or reversing that program’s gains would not only be an ecological loss but could be seen as squandering decades of binational cooperation and funding. Agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and state DNRs have made lake trout restoration a flagship effort. Introducing a new harvest before the job is finished would send a mixed message about commitment to conservation. It could also raise inter-state frictions; for example, other Lake Michigan states might object if Wisconsin unilaterally starts allowing commercial trout catch that could potentially impact the lake-wide population (since fish move across state lines in the lake). Thus, from a lake-wide conservation perspective, keeping lake trout protected from commercial take is the consensus approach until clear evidence shows the population can handle additional mortality.
Bycatch of Other Species: One more conservation note: Lake trout often co-occur with other prized sport fish like chinook salmon and steelhead (rainbow trout), especially in cooler deeper waters. While whitefish trap nets generally don’t catch many salmon, any expansion of commercial effort could raise the risk of incidental catches of other species. If those occurred, it could lead to calls for further commercialization (e.g., “we’re catching some salmon in nets too, let us keep those”), or it could simply result in dead discards of species that are supposed to be sport-only. This is another slippery slope that biologists are wary of. By maintaining a clear line – no commercial targeting of the trout/salmon complex – managers avoid these scenarios entirely.
Summary: Scientifically, Lake Michigan’s lake trout are a conservation success-in-progress that should not be put at risk. The species’ recovery is not yet complete or secure, and the population cannot sustain additional mortality beyond current sport harvest and natural losses without sacrificing its growth trajectory. Bycatch allowances or commercial harvest, even if limited, introduce new uncertainties and enforcement complexities that could result in higher kill of trout, including the large wild spawners needed to rebuild a self-sufficient population. In sum, the conservation community’s stance has been to “stay the course” with restoration – continue controlling mortality (no commercial take), continue stocking and habitat improvements, and wait until lake trout are truly abundant and naturally reproducing before even considering a commercial fishery. This cautious approach is supported by the best available science on lake trout life history and Great Lakes ecology.
Conclusion: Why Commercial Lake Trout Fishing Should Remain Prohibited
In light of the legal precedents, cross-lake experiences, economic realities, and scientific considerations discussed, it is clear that allowing commercial fishing of lake trout in Lake Michigan is not justified at this time. The risks and drawbacks far outweigh any purported benefits. Below we summarize the key counterarguments to potential justifications that might be offered for opening a commercial lake trout fishery:
- “Lake trout have recovered enough to support commercial harvest.” – Counterargument: Lake Michigan’s lake trout are not fully recovered. Unlike Lake Superior, Lake Michigan has yet to achieve a self-sustaining trout population ([PDF] Lake Trout Monitoring in Lake Michigan: 2023 Spring and Fall …). The rebound is still fragile and patchy, reliant on continued stocking and conservative sport harvest limits. Premature commercial fishing could reverse these gains. Even in Lake Superior, commercial lake trout take is tightly restricted, acknowledging that overharvest can quickly become an issue ([PDF] A Lake Trout Restoration Plan for Lake Superior). In Lake Michigan, prudent management calls for continuing the moratorium on commercial harvest until the population is unquestionably robust.
- “Many lake trout caught in nets are currently wasted (discarded), so we should at least utilize them.” – Counterargument: Actual data indicate that lake trout bycatch in Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan commercial nets is low, on the order of a few percent of the whitefish catch. There is not a massive waste occurring under current practice – commercial fishers avoid trout-heavy areas because they gain nothing from catching them. If we allow retention, that incentive disappears and overall trout mortality is likely to increase, not just “utilize waste.” Essentially, today maybe a handful of trout are incidentally killed and tossed back; tomorrow, with a rule change, dozens or hundreds could be intentionally kept and killed. Bycatch mortality would likely rise because fishers could target trout-rich zones under the guise of whitefish fishing. The best way to minimize trout bycatch is to keep them off-limits, so that commercial fishers continue to actively avoid catching them in the first place. A small amount of unavoidable bycatch is a necessary sacrifice to ensure most lake trout survive to contribute to the population and sport fishery.
- “A commercial fishery would economically benefit Wisconsin (new jobs, revenue).” – Counterargument: The economic benefit of a commercial lake trout fishery would be negligible, especially compared to the thriving sport fishery it could undermine. As detailed, Great Lakes recreational fishing is a multi-billion dollar industry (Report: Great Lakes recreational fishing worth billions to economy …) supporting thousands of jobs, while the entire Wisconsin Lake Michigan commercial sector consists of ~12 family businesses (Commercial Fishing on the Great Lakes is a Family Affair – Marine Link) and would yield only a tiny increase in revenue from selling lake trout. Any additional income for a few commercial operations must be weighed against potential losses in sport fishing-related tourism, charter business income, and license sales if the quality of the recreational fishery declines. Moreover, enforcement and management costs for the state would rise, likely eating up whatever small economic gain the commercial harvest generated. In short, there is no significant economic upside to justifying commercial lake trout harvest – the numbers simply don’t support it. On the contrary, keeping lake trout as a sport species maximizes economic return and jobs (through angling) for the state.
- “Other Great Lakes allow commercial lake trout fishing, so why not Lake Michigan?” – Counterargument: This is a misunderstanding. No other Great Lake except Superior has any substantial commercial lake trout take, and Superior’s situation is unique (fully recovered stock, and even there it’s only a limited bycatch fishery) ([PDF] Lake Superior Lake Trout Management). Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario do not have open state commercial trout fisheries; they are still focused on restoration or managing limited tribal allocations. Michigan’s state-licensed commercial fishery on Lake Michigan has had zero lake trout quota for years, leaving all those fish to recreational anglers (Michigan’s commercial fishing industry fear state bills –). The prevailing policy around the Great Lakes is not to commercially harvest lake trout unless and until a population is undeniably strong and then only in a controlled manner. Lake Michigan is actually in line with other lakes by forbidding commercial trout harvest. Departing from that approach would make Wisconsin an outlier, and could be seen as undermining the cooperative regional management strategy that has been in place. In essence, Lake Michigan is not lagging behind some trend – it is following the scientifically sound approach shared by most jurisdictions to protect a recovering species.
- “It’s unfair to commercial fishermen to deny them this species; they need it due to declines in other catches.” – Counterargument: While one can empathize with commercial fishers facing challenges (like declining whitefish in some areas), the solution is not to open up a species that has been off-limits for good reason. There are ongoing efforts to help commercial fishing adapt (e.g., exploring whitefish in new areas or other sustainable species). But lake trout have essentially been managed as a public trust resource for sport fishing and ecosystem restoration for decades. Reallocating that to a few commercial operators now would be unfair to the broader public who have supported trout rehabilitation and to the sport anglers who have acquiesced to regulations (size limits, reduced creel limits, etc.) to aid recovery. The public interest in lake trout conservation and sport use far exceeds the private interest of a handful of commercial fishers seeking short-term gain. This is reflected in public opinion – as noted, Wisconsin citizens overwhelmingly opposed the idea of a commercial lake trout fishery in a recent survey (7,500+ against vs. very few in favor) (Commercial Fishing for Lake Trout Receives Little Support). The social license simply isn’t there to justify a policy shift that benefits a tiny group at the potential expense of many.
- “If populations continue to grow, we can always adjust later; starting commercial fishing now won’t hurt.” – Counterargument: This assumes a level of precision in control that is hard to guarantee. Once commercial fishing is allowed, it can be difficult to dial it back without controversy – especially if investments are made or markets established. It’s much safer to wait until lake trout are undeniably abundant and self-sustaining before even considering such a move. Right now, we are not at that stage, and introducing a new source of mortality “just a little early” could be exactly what prevents the population from ever reaching the fully recovered stage. It’s more prudent to follow through with the recovery plan (which did not envision commercial harvest at this point) and only revisit the idea down the road if Lake Michigan sees sustained natural reproduction and surplus trout that could support additional harvest. We are likely still years away from that scenario. In the meantime, maintaining the prohibition keeps the focus on conservation and high-value sport use.
Reinforcing the Reasons to Keep the Ban: In conclusion, the case against commercial lake trout fishing in Lake Michigan is compelling on multiple fronts. Legally, it would overturn decades of sound policy and go against interstate management agreements. Practically, experiences on other Great Lakes show that introducing commercial harvest can create conflict and must be tightly controlled – a challenge not worth taking on in Lake Michigan at this time. Economically, the sport fishery generates far greater benefits, and a commercial fishery would contribute little while potentially costing a lot. Scientifically, the lake trout population is still in need of protection to reach its restoration goals; additional harvest pressure is an unnecessary risk. Public sentiment strongly favors keeping lake trout a sport fish, and stakeholders have serious concerns about the ramifications of changing that status.
All these reasons reinforce that Wisconsin should continue to prohibit commercial fishing of lake trout in Lake Michigan. The wisest course is to support ongoing restoration and maximize the recreational and ecological value of lake trout. By doing so, Lake Michigan’s lake trout can hopefully reach true recovery, at which point management can be reevaluated with a full suite of data. Until then, any commercial exploitation remains a gamble with a resource that has taken over half a century to rebuild. In fisheries management, avoiding the mistakes of the past is crucial – and the collapse of lake trout under commercial overfishing in the 1940s-50s is a mistake not to be repeated ([PDF] Legal Documents of the – Great Lakes Fishery Commission). Wisconsin’s current policy honors that hard-learned lesson. It should be upheld in order to secure the lake trout’s future and the many benefits they provide to the ecosystem and public.