|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I've often heard anglers say that Lake Mille Lacs never had muskies in it until the late 1980's...not so.
Early in the last century (c1910-1915), railroad was the major way to get around. The RR companies both here and in Canada used to advertise a lot and often used angling as an enticement to garner customers. Following is part of an advertisement/article for the Soo ($oo) Line railroad entitled "Aitkin, Millelacs & Kanabec Counties Minnesota"
MILLE LACS COUNTY: That part of Mille Lacs County the Soo Line passes through is one of the most beautiful spots in the state. In ages past, its gentle hills, quiet vales, stately inlets, sandy beaches and shady groves and the magnificent forest region surrounding it offered every attraction to the Indians, and it now does the same to the White race, who are looking either for health, pleasure, recreation, sport or a more prosaic home. It furnishes all that is required for either.
"Mille Lacs Lake is the second largest in the state. It is regular in shape and about 17 miles long and 15 miles in width. There are several islands within its borders, all of them fine places for summer homes. The fishing is unsurpassed. Bass, pike, pickerel (walleye), etc., and better than these THE MUSKALONGE IS HERE IN GREAT NUMBERS (caps mine...LR). The lake is navigated by several steamers which land at Waukon, the new town on the Soo Line destined to be one of the finest inland towns in Northern Minnesota and a great summer resort. The steamers can also run down Rum River to Lake Onamia and the new town of Onamia."...
Thought you might like to know...
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/1/2016 3:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| Thanks Larry ,,, you are the best !!! ----- jimjimjim |
|
| |
|
| Cool story Larry...I'd imagine the Rum had a decent population too. I think it's funny how people view Muskie lakes. It seems like the perception is that lakes are "Muskie lakes" or there are no Muskies present. In reality any lake/river/stream in the Muskie's range with the appropriate physical characteristics probably has, or had at some time, a population. We also like to overlook the extent to which we have disconnected and rerouted our watersheds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20218
Location: oswego, il | That's a feather in our cap for the anti musky crowd! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Glaucus_ - 2/2/2016 7:56 AM
That is cool...and I'd still want to see some pictures of muskies caught there in the early 1900s before relying on Soo Line ad claims as evidence. "If you didn't weigh it, don't say it." ;-)
Right - Like they brought photographers with them? LOL! Do you really understand that muskies are also river fish? The Rum River dumps into the Mississippi River.
http://dnr.state.mn.us/watertrails/rumriver/index.html
The same is true of Cass Lake!
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watertrails/mississippiriver/two.html
How did they get there, I think they had about 10,00 years. I wonder what muskie fishing was like on Mille Lacs in the early 1900's. The native people's probably ate a lot of muskies too, either spearing them in the rivers or in the lakes, they were very resourceful people.. its pretty simple to make a spear that would rival any used by the "Dark House" guy's in Mn....All the native's needed was a couple of buffalo hides, one to lay on and one to cover themselves as they watched down the hole, they may have even used a type of ice shanty constucted of some saplings and a few hides....yes- they may have used decoys too. I can't find any photo's or bumpboard photo's of them either , its just logical, sorry ToddM.........................
http://worldmuskiealliance.com/static/pdf/Muskellunge_in_North_Amer...
Thanks, Larry!
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 2/2/2016 9:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Al says " I wonder what muskie fishing was like on Mille Lacs in the early 1900's."
Al, you mean you don't remember? Man, its heck getting old. 
Three things happen when you get old, 1) you lose your memory and I forget what the other two are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | A lot of people say that just in the last 40 yrs. or so Muskies have only been stocked in Vermilion, NOT True... Vermilion has had Muskies since the 1918- 1920's .
I have read articles and seen pics of Muskies from back then.
I have a coffee table book of the area, that says so.
Good Historic info, Larry |
|
| |
|
| Ed at VDL has a pic from that era of an angler with a Muskie down by the dam. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Who knows what the topography was a thousand, or thousands of years ago. On the V, Mud Creek basically ends close/or at Burntside, which is BWCA... which has some Shoepack... So, who knows... It basically only matters to musky enthusiasts. Stocking records indicate Shoepack were stocked well before Leech Lake Strain. I saw them in there in the early 80s too, before the stocking of LL started, and was taunted by my friends with a cabin there about the big fish with red fins that'll bite ya... They have been there a while. Oh, and Ben, I'm watching an old Keyes episode now (Dead of Night Muskies) and there you are...creepy... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Top H2O: I have historical references to muskies in Vermilion from as far back as 1908...big ones too. As Ben mentioned, Ed at Vermilion Dam Lodge has a photo of the first lodge owner holding a giant he found dead by the dam. He also has a photo of a Hybrid muskie from 1938. I have several post cards from the 1950's era with muskies from Vermilion as well...they have always been there, just not a fishable population like there is now.
"If you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain"...Steven Wright |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | It's just cool to think that prior to the building of Vermilion dam in 1890, fish would've had relatively free reign from Tower MN to Port Nelson, of course save for a few Dalles the Gorge, and waterfalls in between. That isn't even taking the English system into account, which connects halfway between. Because the Canadien shield is 3.96 billion years old and some of the falls on this system are fairly dramatic, glaciation wasn't able to either separate or completely and or navigably connect these waters to allow upstream entrainment. However, because there were always Muskies in Vermilion, I suspect it could be argued that it was one of the origins of the species in that watershed. Ultimately after damming, the LOTW resevoir became the most suitable habitat with the largest river system in and out, but I'd like to think that at one time the population was homogenous in very low numbers across the system to at least as far north as the species carries now.
One thing I have found interesting is the number of spotted Muskies encountered on the Rainy/Winnipeg/Nelson system(which includes LOTW). We started catching spotties in the later 1990's up there and we've always wondered if it was a natural population always there 'separate' from the barreds/clears, or if some of these were/are Vermilion stocked fish making their way downstream. Nonetheless, very interesting stuff, and as a river fisherman, I'm still finding connections to systems that I have fished my whole life, uncovering answers along with alot more questions.
Good discussion, and thank you Larry for your work on the history of these fish. I know I sure enjoyed picking your brain that day in the boat several years ago, on another great river system in the northland. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jason: I found you comments interesting, especially "entrainment". What one must consider, is that prior to these impassible gorges, etc. the glacier "melt water" completely covered all of that area and as the glaciers melted back around 10 to 12 thousand years ago, the entire area of discussion, as well as eastern Ontario and more, was ONE BIG LAKE! Lake Agassiz...which covered an area nearly five times larger than Lake Superior!! And make no mistake, glaciation did indeed change some river drainages and their direction of flow.
For one like yourself that likes to delve back into geological history, I'd recommend the book "Historical Geology" by Carl O. Dunbar.
There is a reason, as you have noted, that some areas, like Lake of the Woods (LOTW) have several different strains (species?) of muskies in them and I submit that some of it is due to movement ability over various watersheds long, long ago and the joining of various water bodies by impoundment (such as LOTW).
Interestingly too, the literature of the late 1800's differentiates between three different "color patterns" (strains/species?) in the upper Wisconsin River watershed as well. When one looks at the Vilas County, Wisconsin record caught by Myrl McFaul from North Twin Lake, it is un-questionably a "spottie". Same with Lake Michigamme in the UP of Michigan. Most from there are "northern strain" (allopatric...small strain/species? "greenies"), but the former Michigan "northern strain" record from there (over 40 pounds) was also a "spottie". Go figure...natural "mixing" or man's intervention?
Lots of neat stuff to be learned about the muskie world...just catching them isn't all there is to it if you really wish to enjoy the "complete" complexity of our sport!
We'll have to share a boat again one of these days Jason! I too very much enjoyed our time together.
"Ok, so what is the speed of dark?"...Steven Wright
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2016 9:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2325
Location: Chisholm, MN | Ok, so muskies must have been around when lake Agassiz was covering most of the area...right? And it must be safe to assume that "strains" of muskies formed after that right? Maybe not all strains, but some of them. Shoepack, for example, was covered by the lake. Then Shoepack lake must have been secluded long enough to have formed this stunted strain of muskies. Leech lake fish are different from Lake of the woods fish, but they both probably came from Lake Agassiz. According to the map I've attached, it looks like Agassiz must have had a drainage to Superior, or some form of it historically. So then muskies must have entered the great lakes from there and spread to other parts of the country?
EDIT! According to the map I attached, Leech was not covered by the big lake. But it did probably have a connection through drainage.
I'm not trying to make any points of this. I'm just putting my thoughts in writing to try and make sense of it. Cool stuff. Then again, I'm probably way off because there is no way to actually know what went on 10000 years ago, or however long we claim it to be
Edited by Kirby Budrow 2/4/2016 9:52 AM
(2091302531_076ff59ac2_b.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 2091302531_076ff59ac2_b.jpg (225KB - 480 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Imagine the wind that howled across that sucker! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kirby:
We have a couple of different scenario's at work here. First, was the glacier. At that point in time, muskies were in their Mississippi River refuge south of the glacier. As the glacier melted back (it did not "retreat" as many like to say), two things happened.
Land that had been "squashed" by the extreme weight of the glacier began to rise (in some cases that "squash" was 700 feet and more). Melt water created many new river corridors that included the drainage eventually of Lake Agassiz and some of these changed later as the "land rise" continued.
Muskies were first to follow the melt back. As the melt water receded and Lake Agassiz drained, several different populations of muskies were trapped in glacial bowls, some of which ended up without ingress or egress in the end. These populations were allopatric (absent pike) and developed a spawning strategy similar to pike...in shallow water without competition.
Later came the pike and in situations where pike and muskies had to co-exist sympatric (with pike) HISTORICALLY, and eventually developed a different spawning strategy, i.e., spawning in deeper water. A major part of that strategy also involved multiple spawning, i.e., sympatric muskellunge spawn twice, the second spawn being as important as the first.
A little know fact and not readily found in the literature, is that allopatric muskellunge have an average of about 1/3 as many eggs as are found in sympatric muskellunge stocks. In most cases, these sympatric eggs are larger than those of allopatric muskellunge and likely contribute to both the larger maximum size of sympatric muskellunge as well as the necessity of spawning twice...the larger volume of eggs in sympatric muskellunge cannot all ripen at the same time due to ovary capacity.
If you are fishing an allopatric population of muskellunge, you can expect the maximum size attainable to be 35 to 40 pounds or slightly more. The "giants" that trophy hunters seek will always come from sympatric muskellunge populations.
"The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard."...Steven Wright |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2325
Location: Chisholm, MN | Interesting!
So these sympatric populations that you're talking about spawn twice in this day and age? I feel like I'm missing something... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: Metro | I found it interesting that they were floating steamers down the rum river. Don't blow me up but I have only seen the river in a few spots and it looks very narrow and shallow. Can anyone help me out and try not to be too harsh. I have not looked anything up on the internet just going off personal experience from driving to my cabin my whole life and only seeing a small section. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | While my main emphasis of minimalistic armchair research has been post glaciation, the former no doubt holds the key to where things were before we came along. From the snub nosed WI giants from days gone by, to the spotties that were seen in many areas before there were 'supposed' to be there, is intriguing stuff. Knowing that some of the Muskies my dad and grandfather were catching in unstocked waters back in the 50's-70's were offspring of the original residents is very cool. Knowing that they looked a bit different than the fish they caught in a different county/drainage may not be for the reasons I've concluded, but I will always enjoy the long campfire conversations about just that.
Musky952, sent a pm
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/4/2016 7:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Not sure the Rum is viable these days but it really doesn't take much water! I've found 'em in pretty small creeks in my minimal amount of field research! Also interesting is the quick/quiet construction of a new dam above Ogechie lake. Not sure what the long term effect will be on the Rum.
Edit: I should say "quick/quiet this time" The restoration of Ogechie's wild rice has been an ongoing discussion.
Edited by Ben Olsen 2/4/2016 9:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Make's you wonder exactly what is the invasive in those waters huh??? As pretty much the apex predator of the system, I am sure the musky has free reign over the water back then, much like how great whites are now again showing up along the eastern coasts they gained their fame on. Cool stuff. Bet there were no bumpboards then either... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Kirby: Not sure what you mean by saying that you are missing something "this day and age" . Allopatric populations of muskies spawn once and sympatric populations of muskies spawn twice, usually about two weeks apart depending on the spring weather. Extreme cold fronts can cause either population to abort it spawn cycle.
Musky952, I suspect that the Rum River was a lot different 100 years ago than it is today. Man messed with most streams in the north country back then.
"What happens if you get scared half to death twice?"...Stephen Wright |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | I belive that the distribution of ESOX Masquinongy (Muskies) is very tightly tied to our geological history....lets also not forget the Mississippi River and its upper tributaries and those links to Mille Lacs, Cass and yes Leech are important from an overall historical perspective...they to were formed ~ 10,000 years ago and there was a massive outflow of water going south as the ice covering Lake Agazzi melted. Smaller stretches of the Mississippi river upstream of MPLs may have had 20-50 feet or more higher water levels back then, those falls & rapids you see today may have just been a small bump in the road - the mighty Mississppi at LaCrosse was ~250-500' deeper than it is today...Muskies are river fish, I've caught them in the raging currents of the Wisconsin River when all 17 gates at the Castle Rock dam were wide open, these fish are built for speed and current.
I don't think the draining of Agazzis was as dramatic as that of Glacial Lake Wisconsin ~14,000 years ago...or maybe it was. When the Glacial Lake Wisconsin glacial ice plug gave way it literally drained the lake in days and in the process created "The Wisconsin Dells" section of the WI river as we know it today.
http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/wisconsin-geology/ice-age/
https://www.wisconline.com/wisconsin/geoprovinces/art/glaciallakewis...
and
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/37954/Jahnz%20Konz...
Yes, 10,000 years is a long time, but there were Paleo Indians (Natives) around back then too. They were moving in to exploit resources too, and they were pretty advanced in tool making and uses...maybe spearing muskies.
Why do I think about this stuff, well because it connects me to the fish and makes chasing them much more enjoyable
http://www.wiscnews.com/news/article_0db0b275-df0d-5afe-bc73-2164a9...
Look at where Tomah WI is on the gif map of Glacial Lake Wisconsin...I wonder if human eye's saw it before it drained and afterword, that would have been a pretty dramatic event to witness.
I have some of there stone tool artifact's from our farm, three of them are very old.. the smallest one at 1 inch in length is most fascinating because of the almost microscopic details used in making it. It has even spaced right angle parallel groves along one cuting edge that are spaced at less than 1mm...they are deliberately there, in its original form without wear, it was equivalent to a modern version of a serrated scalpel. The only thing I can think of that could cut such grove's at this size is a diamond point. It a stunning piece of craftsmanship, yes all three of these are very likely 10,000 years old too..
Lastly, I think its false to speculate that muskies sub species developed only 10,000 years ago, in all likely hood it could be millions of years, with subspecies appearing as time went on, e.g., adaptation to their environment. Some probably went extinct.
Talk about connected, every muskie fisherman should try fishing a real unspoiled Canadian Shield lake where there are no other human distractions or sounds other than loons or wolves or the sceam of a Lynx, and those annoying float planes, they are really annoying when they come to pick you up, because you know the experience is ending.
Have fun!
Al
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | ESOX Maniac - 2/5/2016 11:22 AM
Lastly, I think its false to speculate that muskies sub species developed only 10,000 years ago, in all likely hood it could be millions of years, with subspecies appearing as time went on, e.g., adaptation to their environment. Some probably went extinct.
Have fun!
Al
Great stuff Al. However, it takes less time than you might think for taxonomical identifiers to start taking place in one species. Selection calls for the survival of the species, and as you might've pointed out, the fish that inhabited certain rivers naturally are slightly different than fish that were naturally reproducing in natural landlocked lakes for the past few thousand years. It really only takes a few generations to begin to select for the 'fittest' population as has been observed in salmon and other fish species. With Muskies, while it is more difficult to see it today, years ago one could've seen differences in the look/shape of fish on certain bodies of water that were separated via barriers for centuries. That is the beauty of fish and aquatic critters vs mammalia and terrestrials that have the ability to move liberally through the landscape, though it's happened there too with speciation. It wasn't just water clarity/quality that made-up the coloration of fish. The unique shapes were also selected for naturally within the population, if not very very subtly. I'd argue you are probably correct in the actual speciation argument, and I don't even know how many subspecies of muskies there would be considered. I don't know how long it took the Cichlids(not sure if my spelling is correct) to actually become speciated to the point that they could no longer interbreed, but it happened via separation not unline the north American glacier caused separation here. If I'd paid more attention in college, I might just remember some of those details or even know where to look... oops.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Along the lines of rapid genetic change (not muskies but...):
"DNA evidence shows that salmon hatcheries cause substantial, rapid genetic changes
By David Stauth, 541-737-0787
Contact: Michael Blouin, 541-737-2362 or [email protected]; Mark Christie, 765-427-8435 or [email protected]
This study is available online: http://bit.ly/1Qxcoys
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new study on steelhead trout in Oregon offers genetic evidence that wild and hatchery fish are different at the DNA level, and that they can become different with surprising speed.
The research, published today in Nature Communications, found that after one generation of hatchery culture, the offspring of wild fish and first-generation hatchery fish differed in the activity of more than 700 genes.
A single generation of adaptation to the hatchery resulted in observable changes at the DNA level that were passed on to offspring, scientists reported.
This research was conducted at Oregon State University in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Scientists say the findings essentially close the case on whether or not wild and hatchery fish can be genetically different.
Differences in survival and reproductive success between hatchery and wild fish have long offered evidence of rapid adaptation to the hatchery environment. This new DNA evidence directly measured the activity of all genes in the offspring of hatchery and wild fish. It conclusively demonstrates that the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish are large in scale and fully heritable.
“A fish hatchery is a very artificial environment that causes strong natural selection pressures,” said Michael Blouin, a professor of integrative biology in the OSU College of Science. “A concrete box with 50,000 other fish all crowded together and fed pellet food is clearly a lot different than an open stream.”
It’s not clear exactly what traits are being selected for, but the study was able to identify some genetic changes that may explain how the fish are responding to the novel environment in the hatchery.
“We observed that a large number of genes were involved in pathways related to wound healing, immunity, and metabolism, and this is consistent with the idea that the earliest stages of domestication may involve adapting to highly crowded conditions,” said Mark Christie, lead author of the study.
Aside from crowding, which is common in the hatchery, injuries also happen more often and disease can be more prevalent.
The genetic changes are substantial and rapid, the study found. It’s literally a process of evolution at work, but in this case it does not take multiple generations or long periods of time.
“We expected hatcheries to have a genetic impact,” Blouin said. “However, the large amount of change we observed at the DNA level was really amazing. This was a surprising result.”
With the question put to rest of whether hatchery fish are different, Blouin said, it may now be possible to determine exactly how they are different, and work to address that problem. When the genetic changes that occur in a hatchery environment are better understood, it could be possible to change the way fish are raised in order to produce hatchery fish that are more like wild fish. This research is a first step in that direction.
This work was performed using steelhead trout from the Hood River in Oregon. It was supported by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
-30-
Editor’s Note: Two images of steelhead trout are available online:
Juvenile steelhead: https://flic.kr/p/CG5pQu
Adult steelhead: https://flic.kr/p/D79yvs
About Oregon State University: OSU is one of only two universities in the United States that is designated a Land Grant, Sea Grant, Space Grant and Sun Grant institution. OSU is also Oregon’s only university to hold both the Carnegie Foundation’s top designation for research institutions and its prestigious Community Engagement classification."
Interesting food for thought!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| interesting stuff, growing up and living around the leech lake area ive been fortunate enough to see many of the musky lakes around here and to fish them. also well known and not so well known musky lakes that have creeks and rivers in them. some lakes separated by swamps. it has been interesting to witness some of these lakes that have been separated by swamps from the other musky lakes. they had some musky in them for awhile but over the yrs things were just not adequate enough for them and they slowly disappeared or are still there but not a fishable population. ive always been up for adventures and 2 yrs ago portaging upstream over beaver dams and stuff for several miles to take a look at a big beaver pond I knew had fish in it and I was curious if there could be maybe a ski or 2 in it I was rewarded to have a nice follow from around a beast 53". ive been back several times to no avail. she is still there no doubt and hopefully ill see her again. |
|
| |
