Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
wildcatcreek

Better Pic of the Strange Catch!

16 posts in this topic

that is the ugliest thing I have seen on the end of a line....wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could just be a mud puppie as I've heard them referred to, but I've never seen one personally. I also know of an invasive species from China called the Snakehead that had a lot of Fish and Wildlife types concerned because it is a voracious predator and can literally move to new bodies of water with those crazy legs it possesses. You may want to forward a picture of that to your local DNR officer, just in case. I'm sure someone else on the forum will have a better idea of what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure looks like a mudpuppie.Did a search for them and this is the description it gave...

Features: Large, feathery, external gills, slender legs with four toes on each foot, laterally flattened tail, dark stripe running

through eye, snout is blunt, tail fins do not extend on to body

Coloration: Gray to brownish to almost black, stomach speckled gray with a few large dark spots, larvae and juvenile have broad dark strips down back that are border by yellow stripes

Habitat: Total aquatic (due to gills as only breathing apparatus), streams and weedy ponds, the mudpuppy needs water that has coverings (rocks, weeds or logs) and are more abundant in clear waters, but can withstand muddy water if clear water is available for reproduction, shelters by day in deep water under rocks and wood overhangs. Mudpuppies are primarily nocturnal, but may be active during they day in muddy or weed-choked water. They

are active throughout the year.

Reproduction: Sperm is exchanged in fall and fertilization is internal. Eggs are laid in spring. Females lay eggs in a nest under

stones or logs at water depths over 10 cm. 18-180 eggs are laid at a time.

Larval Stage: Females may stay with eggs during incubation. Larvae take four weeks to hatch and take five to eight years to

attain sexual maturity. First breeding occurs when individual reaches 20 cm in length. Their reproductive life can span over

25 years.

Feeding Habits: Feeds at night on fish, crayfish, aquatic insects, worms, fish eggs; they rely heavily upon olfactory cues to find

their prey.

Range: Mudpuppies widely range form Eastern U. S. to Southern portions of Canada, from southern Quebec to Northern Georgia, primarily west of the Appalachians, expanding as far west as North Dakota

Necturus maculosus can be found typically in the Eastern United

States. They tend to reside under rocks and logs in large rivers and lakes. They have been previously found at depths of up to seventy feet (LeClere). A typical mudpuppy will be eight to thirteen inches in length and reddish brown colored with black spots. Their heads are large and somewhat flat with large maroonish colored gills on the sides (Siebert). This species seems to eat whatever it finds, but some common foods would be worms, crayfish, fish eggs, salamanders and insects. Since their vision is poor they must rely on other

senses to catch their prey (LeClere). A male and female N. maculosus will typically mate in the fall, and the female will lay her eggs in late spring. The female will place her eggs at the top of her nest, which is buried under a rock or some other rock like object. She will then stay to protect her eggs until they have hatched into larvae. The exact time at which she leaves them varies from one female to another (LeClere). It can take up to five years for a N. maculosus to develop into a sexually mature adult, and their sexual life span is about twenty-five years. N. maculosus has three stages of

development the egg, the larva, and the adult stage. This species of salamander is fully aquatic and usually nocturnal. They are also solitary except for when they are reproducing (Siebert).

www.herpnet.net/Iowa-herpetology/amphibians/salamanders/

mudpuppy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah looks like a mud puppy we catch those during the winter on rush lake. I think we caught like 6 in one day once and the first time we did it really freaked us all out cuz we had no idea what it was. But now we normally use the aqua view to make sure there not biting our hooks anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could also be a siren or a he!!bender, especially if this was caught in Indiana. They get darn big and are found in those southern states. How long was this critter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely a mudpuppy, don't bother clogging up the DNR with a panicked email...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mudpuppy, I've unfortunately had a couple on the end of my line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they're awesome for aquariums, IMO. Have some at the DNR, they eat all the dead fish that fall to the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was caught in Indiana, not Minnesota. It's hard to see the size of the salamander in the pic, but if the Styrofoam container is a typical nightcrawler container, this could easily be longer than a foot.

Check out the siren and he!!bender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange catch to say the least! That is one ugly mud puppy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A snakehead is a fish, thats definitely an amphibian. Whatever it is, I think its darn neat. I had two mud puppies when I was a kid that I bought from the pet store. A few months later they turned into tiger salamanders, so they were not really mud puppies. They were some huge salamanders though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nasty lookin'. Looks like a mud puppy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eelpout with legs????? Eelpuppy???????? gringringrin

Jar Jar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is ugly as [PoorWordUsage]... I would be freaked out if I caught one without seeing one before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Dave, if this many folks are not understanding the question, than maybe the question is unclear.  So rather then rant about it perhaps try rephrasing it.
    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
  • Our Sponsors