Historical and Biological Change on Isle Royale
- NPLSF
- 14 minutes ago
- 8 min read
By Tim Cochrane
Change (not “balance”) is an inevitable part of island life. One notable conclusion of Island Biogeography is species “wink” in and out, that is, are extirpated and others may recolonize an Island. Island resiliency is limited, less able to buffer impacts. The pace of change accelerates with human interventions. Let me explain: Most of us who visit Isle Royale assume that we are fortunate to be seeing what is perceived as “natural.” Further, many people, not giving this a thought, assume that what is today has always been, or been like for quite some time. Others more attuned to history or the nature of nature, see change as always on-going. On Isle Royale history has played a profound part of what we consider ‘natural’ today. And given that it is an archipelago in which Island biogeography has always been part of its archipelago “system” change is highly likely, especially among its mammalian residents.
Today, virtually all of the mammals we see, or wish we would see, are relatively newcomers: wolves, moose, fox, beaver, and otter. Go back to the days before the park was created, say 1910, and none of these mammals were present.
And given the fact that the nearby mainland has experienced sweeping ecological change for three centuries, it would be a fair presumption that ‘naturalness’ on Isle Royale has been a fleeting condition for quite some time. Fur trade regional extirpations of beaver, marten, otter, moose, and perhaps other mammals has impacted the Island. Region wide logging of the pines – white and red—followed by logging for pulp has impacted the browse available for moose and deer and led to less favorable conditions for caribou. This too has set the stage for moose recolonization of the region and eventually Isle Royale.
If we go back, just a little more than hundred years, the composition of animals on Isle Royale might astound us including passenger pigeons, sturgeon, woodland caribou, lynx.
The change, the extirpation of some of the mammals such as beaver, otter, and suppression of the numbers of lynx and marten was ongoing for some time. But the main problem to assessing these changes, is the lack of direct records. It is rare to see a plain (and startling) reference to a jolt to the mammalian community in the past.
For example, in the spring of 1890, two men came off the Island with 40 lynx and 100 marten pelts to sell to fur buyers.
Or, more common are the records of the Hudson Bay Company which are vague on the numbers of Island animals harvested. One exception to this are Fort William HBC records that they give the location where caribou were killed because the northern border (and thus Isle Royale) was contested between fur trade companies in the 1820s to 1840s.
The Hudson Bay Company clerk at the Fort William Post (in the heart of Thunder Bay today) noted when his trading partners, area Anishinaabeg, went on lands that most assumed were American (the border had not formally been agreed upon at this time). On August 1836 he wrote: “The Bete and family arrived from Isle Royal. He killed only 3 Rein Deers...." Twelve years earlier the clerk wrote on July 25, 1824: .. "This morning the Main Pocque, L'Homme de Saults -- Little Englishman, Najob & families arrived from Isle Royal [sic] They say there are no caribou there this summer and suppose they all crossed to the mainland last winter -- They brought nothing but fish -- principally dried White fish..."
This latter message brings up Anishinaabeg traditional ecological knowledge, that is, they were quite aware of caribou leaving and re-colonizing Isle Royale in the early 1800s.
While these specific geographically referenced accounts are a wonderful source, they are rare. What is more common is indirect evidence of change in the Island mammals. Change is likely occurring, we just don’t have direct evidence of it. Perhaps the best example of this is from 1837-1841, when the American Fur Company was trying to bolster their profits with a “fishing experiment.”
The American Fur Company, America’s first large corporation, led by John Jacob Aster for many years had, at one point, seven fishing stations at Isle Royale. Their most sought after catch was siscowet, or “fat” lake trout, normally found in deep waters and beyond the easy reach of gill net fishers at the time.
But at Siskiwit Bay a rare population of siscowets spawned earlier and in shallower water and thus were more catchable to the AFC fishers. All went well in one regard: they caught a lot of fish. But their ‘colony’ of fishers, some with families, had little to do for the winter, largely ice bound months of 1837-38 and 1838-39. More than two dozen AFC men, stayed on the Island, with little to do. We do not have a record of how they filled their time during these winter months. Certainly, they did whatever jobs were required such as repairing nets. But because no good source of barrel wood was found, they were not occupied with cutting white pine staves as originally planned. Barrels were critical to the operation as they were how the salted fish was stored and in which they were shipped. Good barrel wood would have to be shipped to the Island.
What were the men doing? They likely were occupied trapping beaver, marten, lynx, and perhaps otter, especially the “freemen” for whom trapping was second nature. The fur trade on the adjacent mainland had already virtually extirpated beaver and moose in the region. Caribou were few in number, but a few held on the Island in limited numbers.
But for two winters, thirty plus trappers and many with families, likely had a draconian effect on fur bearer population on Isle Royale. [i]
Yes, this is an educated guess, but highly likely. How do we even know they were interested in winter trapping? There is one hint in the correspondence between, Ramsay Crooks then President of the American Fur Company and Governor George Simpson of the Hudson Bay Company that the AFC thought trapping on Isle Royale might be lucrative. However, the plan had a snag. The AFC and the venerable Hudson Bay Company had a secret agreement in which the AFC agreed to refrain from trading for furs along the Minnesota-Ontario border and on the North Shore.[ii] In return for not trading with Anishinaabeg for furs, the HBC would pay the AFC 300 pounds sterling annually. In effect, the agreement, to what the companies called “regulating” the trade, re-created a monopoly for the HBC as they would become the only company with which the Anishinaabeg could trade. With a re-constituted monopoly in place, prices could be raised, and profits increased. Neither company worried about the effects it might have on their Anishinaabeg trading partners.
A formal letter from one company titan to another, tipped the hand of what the AFC men might have done during the long winters at Isle Royale.
That Ramsay Crooks thought the trapping prospects at Isle Royale important enough to mention is notable. Likely Crooks presumed it had not been significantly trapped in quite some time and likely had a wealth of animals to harvest (it had a reputation for large beaver). At a minimum, he wanted to preserve that opportunity. We have not located any record confirming trapping was done. But these men were experienced trappers. What, then, is the likelihood the AFC men trapped Isle Royale and had an impact on the viable populations of furbearers on 210 square miles? Since the freemen would be individually compensated for any furs, they had an incentive to trap and they knew trapping. We know later, in the nineteenth century, beaver were gone from the Island as were otter.[iv] Any caribou on the Island were also likely hunted and eaten, especially for families looking to diversify their table fare beyond fish, fish, and more fish. We know that caribou regularly crossed the ice and water to recolonize the Island. So, if hunted out by the AFC men, they may have later recolonized the Island prior to their expiration in the 1920s.[v] The biological after effects of the AFC presence on Isle Royale may have been quite lasting, despite the “footprint” of their fishing stations being so light and in one case their fishing station has yet to be relocated.[vi] Why does this matter?
We tend to be ahistorical about biological conditions we assume to be ‘natural’ today.
We often don’t link that distant historical events may have shaped those conditions of today, or what is also assumed to be a ‘normal’ complement of mammals on Isle Royale. We often underestimate the dynamic change in which species of mammals were present on Isle Royale through time. And yet the turnover of mammals has been quite high. The animals we may see today (moose, wolves, and fox) are not what Charles Chaboillez (leader of the AFC fishing), his wife Josette, and child Alexander saw-- caribou and lynx). Further they relished siscowet, a fish today’s fishermen try to avoid and rarely eat. Change, even as whimsical as what Islanders preferred to eat (siscowets) is an inherent part of Island history. Biological change, even in animal composition, is a primary element in Isle Royale’s history. What we assume to be ‘natural’ conditions on the Island is the consequence of Island biogeography, exacerbated by human intervention in the region and on the Island.
About Tim Cochrane
Historian, author, and NPLSF board member Tim Cochrane served as superintendent of the Grand Portage National Monument for twenty years, co-managing the site with the Grand Portage Anishinaabeg through a Tribal Self-Governance Act agreement. A reluctant bureaucrat, he wrote as an aside and as a creative outlet to his park service duties. His books include Minong–The Good Place: Ojibwe and Isle Royale and A Good Boat Speaks for Itself: Isle Royale Fishermen and Their Boats; and Making the Carry: The Lives of John and Tchi-Ki-Wis Linklater. He is currently working on a new book, Storied Minong: Isle Royale Spirit of Place.
Over the coming months, Tim will be sharing more stories about Isle Royale’s history, so stay tuned!
Continue exploring Tim’s stories of Isle Royale history: Apples on a Wilderness Isle
[i] . Prior to fishing, a freeman trapped, traded, or sold their furs to fur companies. They would have been well versed in trapping when they came to the Island.
[ii] . The “agreement” was secret in great part because it was illegal. And yet it is a common subject in AFC correspondence. Aitkin letter to Crooks, December 25, 1834; George Simpson letter, London to Aitkin, July 10, 1837; Simpson letter to Crooks, November 15, 1837; Crooks letter to Simpson, January 6, 1838, AFC Papers, New York Historical Society.
[iii] Crooks letter to Simpson, October 7, 1837, AFC Papers.
[iv] . David Mech, The Wolves of Isle Royale (Washington: Government Printing Office 1966), 17.
[v] . For example, an 1887 newspaper article about visiting the Thunder Bay, Ontario region, reported: “The caribou is somewhat peculiar in habit, being very fond of the lake. They swim over from the mainland to the Island, sometimes venturing as far as Isle Royale…” “A Rich Region,” the Manitowoc (Wisconsin) Pilot, December 15, 1887.
[vi] The AFC operations left very little material evidence on the Island when they returned to La Pointe, particularly little personal items. Their archaeological footprint is quite slight. Doucet, “Salted Fish and Spawning Capitalism,” 76.
About NPLSF
The National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation (NPLSF) exists to provide financial support for projects and programs that preserve the natural resources and cultural heritage of the five Lake Superior national parks: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Grand Portage National Monument, Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw National Historical Park, and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
Funded through grants and private donations, NPLSF projects and programs ensure that these great parks and historic sites are maintained for the enjoyment of all current and future visitors.
To learn how you can support our work visit nplsf.org/donate.
