Egans Errors 2?

In just a decade the filter-feeding mollusks have literally turned life upside down in Lake Michigan by sucking to the bottom so much of the plankton that sustained a healthy commercial fishery.A graph is provided to show declining commercial harvests of four fish species in Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan, with 1994 highlighted for mussels.

How about our Whitefish graph (Chart 1) with more years. We'll get to the 3 years for comparison that are circled in red.
Note the Journal's comparison of 7-year old Whitefish by weight, lower right of their chart.
First, let’s check with the WDNR as to the average weight of Whitefish (Chart 2), please note that the 11-year old Whitefish were already ~ 25% smaller before Zebra mussels. The 7-year old fish get smaller too.
What happens when Whitefish are charted by number of fish (7-year olds) instead of poundage.

                     Chart 1                                                  Chart 2                                                   Chart 3                                                Chart 4
While the 3 red circled points on Chart 1 shows an increase of ~16% by weight, when converted to corresponding number of smaller sized Whitefish, the difference is an astounding 400% increase in harvest (Chart 3).
Chart 4, shows that the commercial fishing industry is about money, if one species of fish don't satisfy them, then they will just switch species and Whitefish harvests go up after Zebra Mussels.
So what of the premise of less available food equates to smaller fish? That has been tried before with perch, read here, with the finding that commercial overfishing pressure resulted in smaller fish, not lack of food.
Mussels, pollution, insufficient Breeding Stock Biomass, extremes in sex ratios? How about reverse breeding, the biggest, fastest growing Whitefish are quickly culled, leaving the smallest slowest growing Whitefish to breed?
As you can see, major changes again happened before the arrival of Zebra Mussels, increased number of Whitefish netted, shift to males, smaller Whitefish being kept. Sounds a lot like perch?
          

                 Chart 5                                              Chart 6                                       Chart 7                                Chart 8

Chart 5 disputes the 1970’s theory that alewives were the cause of the chub decline. The graph supports several key points. 1) Commercial overfishing depleted chubs. 2) After chubs were protected, they made a recovery despite the presence of alewives. 3) Despite a lake depleted of competition, alewives weren’t able to out populate chubs even while chubs were netted and alewives were protected starting in 1991.
Chart 6 shoots the mussel theory to pieces, otherwise how else would one explain that after mussels arrived, whitefish found not only enough plankton for their young to survive, but to thrive. Wisconsin whitefish biomass increases 11 fold after mussels arrive.
"Dreissenid mussels are not a “dead end” in Great Lakes food webs", 2010. Lake Huron had 2.4 times as many whitefish and they consumed 8 times as many mussels. Here again, removing native preditors of invasives, and in so doing harming the lake.
The DNR’s habit of removing native fish to excess (herring, perch, chubs), then protecting invasive species less able to cope (alewives) only leave Lake Michigan open for yet more invasives, because nature abhors a vacuum. Everyone now blames mussels, but look at Chart 8, showing stacked data of Chart 7 (USGS),the total biomass is one third of what it was in 1989. USGF - "However, Bunnell et al. (2009b) proposed that the bulk of the decline in total prey fish biomass may be better explained by factors other than food-web-induced effects by dreissenids, including poor fish recruitment (that preceded the mussel expansion), shifts in fish habitat, and increased fish predation by Chinook salmon and lake trout".
Fish at the top of the lake have first access to plankton produced at waters surface, aren't mussels on the bottom at a disadvantage? A 2005 study finds perch were reduced to such low levels as to possibly be unable to repopulate the lake, chubs and smelt now join perch, walleyes and pike of Lake Michigan, as being very scarce. Less then 1% of perch survive, only ~3% of the daytime benthic biomass are native forage species yet the DNR is trying in increase alewife numbers and see no need to restock native fisheries? Who saves an alewife to feed a non-native salmon, but refuses to stock a perch to eat an invasive goby, alewife, spiny water flea, mussels or young carp? It’s obvious to me that management is the real problem.