146 
with fly and bait, but never succeeded in taking 
one or even attracting their attention.” 
Now there never has been a time on the Ameri¬ 
can continent within history where an abundance 
of fish or game has not led to indiscriminate 
slaughter by settlers or others. From the forego¬ 
ing it may 'be judged with what zeal the taking 
of the little Blueback was prosecuted whenever 
he appeared out of his mysterious environment 
and came to the surface. It was the practice of 
settlers, as noted above, to scoop him up in bags 
full, and he even found his way to New York 
and other markets, as reference to old Forest 
and Stream files will show. Some who passed on 
his toothsomeness claim that he was superior to 
common brook trout; others did not like him so 
well, perhaps for the reason that his food con¬ 
sisted of lower forms of microscopic aquatic life 
—in a word he must have had some of the habits 
of the mud eating fishes. 
Nevertheless little Salvelinus oquassa —for that 
is what the scientists called him—was rather a 
handsome fish. As a rule he weighed about five 
to the pound. In more recent years he grew 
heavier, but of that something will be said later. 
As to his appearance, Fish Commissioner Stanley 
of Maine wrote in 1874: 
“This beautiful little fish takes its name from 
a bluish tint on the back, not unlike the bloom 
of a plum. They are spotted like a trou't, and 
to the casual observer the difference in a basket 
of fishes would not be noted. But like the togue 
they have only the yellow and black spots but not 
the red. Their tints and coloring are very beauti¬ 
ful, particularly in the male, the pectoral fins 
rivalling in color the autumn-tinted maple leaves; 
like the dying dolphin, their brillancy of color is 
lost or fades away with their lives. They are 
more delicate and symmetrical in shape than the 
brook trout and have the tail forked.” 
So much for oquassa in his earlier days of 
plentitude. What of him later? The best history 
that has been written of him is to be found in 
Vol. 8, No. 1, Memoirs of the Boston Society of 
Natural History. (The Fishes of New England) 
by Dr. William Converse Kendall, Scientific 
Assistant, United States Bureau of Fisheries. The 
distinguished author went to great trouble to 
establish the coming and going of the Blueback, 
FOREST AND STREAM 
and it is rather complimentary to Fqrest and 
Stream that no less than twenty references are 
made to articles which appeared in its columns 
dealing with the Blueback. 
Dr. Kendall goes on to tell of the subsequent 
exhaustion and what amounts almost to extinc¬ 
tion of the Blueback. He writes that in the nine¬ 
ties a comparatively rapid decrease was noticed in 
the number of fish, and this became so marked 
that protective legislation was made, but it was 
not until 1899 that a law was passed prohibiting 
further catching of Blueback in any waters of 
Maine. But the “stable door,” to quote the doc¬ 
tor, “was not locked until after the horse had 
been stolen.” The Blueback had gone forever, 
and since 1905, none have been taken in the 
Rangeley streams. 
But now comes the most wonderful part of tlhe 
history of 'the Blueback. Some time in the late 
nineties, the state fish commission of Maine 
planted smelts in the Rangeley lakes for the pur¬ 
pose of providing food for the land locked 
salmon. It is the opinion of scientists and prac¬ 
tical fish culturists that the trout of the Rangeley 
lakes derived much of their size from the fact 
that food in the form of Blubbacks was so com¬ 
mon, the monsters of eight and ten and twelve 
pounds which formerly were caught in the 
Rangeleys having waxed and grown fat on a 
Blueback diet. 
When 'the salmon of the Rangeley lakes began 
to multiply they also recognized the succulent 
quality of the Blueback, and as the salmon and 
the Blueback both were deep water fish, the 
latter went under in the unequal struggle. Hence 
soon there were fewer Bluebacks; finally were 
none at all. But the Blueback himself, with a 
little longer chance, might have made himself 
over again, as it were, into a larger species, for 
strangely enough he began to feed on the newly 
hatched smelts, and it is a fact of established 
official record that the last Blueback caught, in¬ 
stead of weighing from three to five ounces, ran 
as high as two to two and one-half pounds— 
in a word they had discovered the secret “On 
what meat doth this our Caesar (the big Range- 
ley trout) feed, that he hath grown so great,” 
and were themselves taking advantage of it when 
the last of them were eaten by the salmon or 
died of old age without further reproduction. 
Here is another queer circumstance in the his¬ 
tory of 'the Blueback that scientists are still 
puzzling themselves about. In 1878 and in 1879 
the New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission 
introduced in Sunapee Lake several thousand 
young Bluebacks. Shortly after that came the dis¬ 
covery of the white trou't or golden trout 
Salvelinus aureolus now famous the world over, 
and oif which Dr. Quackenbos and other talented 
anglers have written so charmingly. Dr. Kendall 
does not say that the Blueback, by reason of 
continued feeding on smelts in Sunapee Lake, is 
now none other than our friend Salvelinus 
aureolus, or the far famed Sunapee trout, but 
speaking of the Sunapee, he says: 
"There is no record of the introduction of any 
other fish than the Blueback which could possibly 
account for its presence. It has been absolutely 
proved that none of the products of European 
Sai'bling eggs ever reached Sunapee Lake. If not 
a Blueback or a Saibling and not indigenous, 
where did it come from? It is quite possible 
that the Sunapee White Trout was once, before 
the smelts were introduced, small like the Blue- 
back of Rangeley Lakes and on that account 
never took the hook and was never observed as 
it did not attain a large size until after the in¬ 
troduction of smelts; yet there is no way to 
prove it.” 
Dr. Kendall evidently does not want to commit 
himself on the proposition, 'but he can again be 
quoted as follows with reference to the little 
Blueback: 
“'It is closely allied to the Sunapee Lake White 
Trout and the Canadian Red Trout, ( Salvelinus 
Marstonii) the latter having been designated by 
some ichthyologists as a sub-species of the Blue- 
back, and it was at one time contended by many 
that the former was derived from Bluebacks that 
had been planted in the lake. It has been sug¬ 
gested that all of the nominal species of this 
group are really specifically identical but subject 
to considerable local variation in form, color and 
habits.” 
What are we to conclude from all that has been 
written above? The first fact is that the B.ue- 
back has gone from the Rangeleys and is prob¬ 
ably extinct so far as that chain of waters is 
concerned. He is to be found in a few Isolated 
bodies of water in Maine, so that he has not 
disappeared utterly from the earth or the waters 
thereof. Perhaps he is to be found also in far 
northern lakes, for he is of Arctic origin. May¬ 
hap, in a sublimated or translated form he is now 
the glorious, golden Sunapee trout, for having 
been given a chance to show what he can do 
under proper circumstances, he has gone about it, 
to the great joy of the present day angler. 
He was always a mysterious little fish. In the 
great economic laws of nature he did not amount 
to much, from our modern worldly way of look¬ 
ing at things, but for all that, he played his little 
part in the 'drama of existence, and only when 
the exquisite poise of nature was disturbed did 
he fall behind in the great struggle of the sur¬ 
vival of the fittest. 
The Blueback it was that helped make the 
enormous Rangeley trout; the Blueback involun¬ 
tarily sacrificed himself to multiply the number 
of land locked salmon in the same Maine lakes. 
It may not be science, but at least it affords a 
pleasant thought that in a new environment, even 
though through the result of accident, the Blue- 
back has perpetuated himself “by a ctiange into 
something rich and strange” as the beautiful 
Salvelinus aureolus of Sunapee. 
