Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 79, Issue 1–2, pp 125–136

An examination of Minnesota’s muskellunge waters

Special Issue

Synopsis

We examined Minnesota’s muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, populations using various data sets including spring trap net assessments and angler diary surveys. We confronted a potentially problematic data set that had a large number of zero catches by fitting logistic models to the presence/absence data set and linear models to the subset of data that included catches with one fish or more. Currently, 105 lakes have been identified as muskellunge waters, of which 61 lakes have been created and maintained by stocking. Although the proportion of successful anglers has increased over time, catch rates have remained the same. It appears from analysis of trap net catches that the abundance of 102 cm (40 in) and larger muskellunge has been increasing over time. Both trap net and angler data provide some indications that size of muskellunge caught has also increased over time. Angler-harvested muskellunge averaged 11 years of age and 115 cm (45 in) total length. For Minnesota waters, muskellunge ultimate length averaged 134 cm (53 in) for females and 119 cm (47 in) for males. All evidence indicates a successful management program.

Keywords

Muskellunge Management Population trends von Bertalanffy growth parameters 

References

  1. Casselman JM, Crossman EJ (1986) Size, age, and growth of trophy muskellunge and muskellunge-northern pike hybrids – the cleithrum project, 1979–1983. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 15:93–110Google Scholar
  2. Casselman JM, Robinson CJ, Crossman EJ (1999) Growth and ultimate length of muskellunge from Ontario water bodies. North Am J Fish Manage 19:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook MF, Younk JA, Schupp DH (1997) An indexed bibliography of creel surveys, fishing license sales, and recreational surface use of lakes and rivers in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report 381, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham PK, Anderson CS (1992) Opinions of angler groups and fisheries professionals in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report 422, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  5. Hanson DA (1986) Population characteristics and angler use of muskellunge in eight northern Wisconsin lakes. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:238–248Google Scholar
  6. Hoff MH, Serns SL (1986) The muskellunge fishery of Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin under liberalized angling regulations, 1946–1981. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:249–256Google Scholar
  7. Hubert WA (1996) Passive capture techniques. In: Murphy BR, Willis DW (eds.), Fisheries techniques, 2nd ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 157–181Google Scholar
  8. Leitch JA, Baltezore JF (1987) Attitudes of Minnesota anglers. Final Report to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis CA (1996) An overview of muskellunge management in Ontario. In: Kerr SJ, Olver CH (eds), Managing muskies in the ‘90s. Workshop Proceedings. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region Science & Technology Transfer Unit Workshop Proceedings. pp 5–9Google Scholar
  10. Margenau TL, Petchenik JB (2004) Social aspects of muskellunge management in Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manage 24:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). (1993) Manual of instructions for lake survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries, Special Publication No. 147, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  12. MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). (1994) Fisheries long-range plan – muskellunge chapter: 1994–1999. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  13. Olson DE, Cunningham PK (1989) Sport-fisheries trends shown by an annual Minnesota fishing contest over a 58-year period. North Am J Fish Manage 9:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pauly D (1984) Fish population dynamics in tropical waters; a manual for use with programmable calculators. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, ICLARM Studies and Reviews 8, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  15. Prager MH, Saila SB, Recksiek CW (1989) FISHPARM: a microcomputer program for parameter estimation of nonlinear models in fishery science, 2nd edition. Old Dominion University, Oceanography Technical Report 87–10, Norfolk, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  16. SAS Insitute, Inc. (2002) JMP Statistics and graphics guide, Version 5. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  17. Scidmore WJ (1970) Manual of instructions for lake survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries, Special Publication 1, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  18. Simonson TD, Hewett SW (1999) Trends in Wisconsin’s muskellunge fishery. North Am J Fish Manage 19:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strand RF (1986) Review of technical contributions. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:360–369Google Scholar
  20. Wingate PJ (1986) Philosophy of muskellunge management. Am Fish Soc Spec Publ 15:199–202Google Scholar
  21. Wingate PJ, Younk JA (in press) A recipe for successful muskellunge management – A Minnesota success story. Environ Biol Fishes 00:000–000Google Scholar
  22. Younk JA, Cook MF (1992) Application of an angler diary for muskellunge, Esox Masquinongy. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report 420, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  23. Younk JA, Strand RF (1992) Performance evaluation of four muskellunge Esox masquinongy strains in two Minnesota lakes. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife Investigational Report 418. St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  24. Younk JA, Pereira DL (2003) An examination of Minnesota’s muskellunge waters. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife Investigational Report 498. St. PaulGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Fish and WildlifeMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesBemidjiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Fish and WildlifeMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations