Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 79, Issue 1–2, pp 163–169 | Cite as

A program for successful muskellunge management—A Minnesota success story

Original Paper


Minnesota has established a successful muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, stocking program as a result of a series of research studies that enabled area fisheries managers to make informed management decisions. The previous propagation and stocking program (pre-1982) reared muskellunge progeny from Shoepack Lake near the Minnesota–Ontario border, but these fish were not attaining trophy size. Protein electrophoresis showed there were two different muskellunge strains in the state. A controlled study was conducted on progeny from natural muskellunge populations from Leech and Shoepack lakes. Fish from these populations, together, were used to stock two other Minnesota lakes, and their growth rates, age of maturity, and maximum size attained were compared. Leech Lake muskellunge grew faster and attained a larger maximum size than the Shoepack Lake strain. As a result, a new stocking program based on the Leech Lake strain was developed. Because it was difficult to collect Leech Lake gametes, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources created seven brood stock lakes using Leech Lake progeny. As a result of combining genetic considerations, new research on spawning sites, more restrictive harvest regulations, and catch-and-release fishing, anglers’ catch of trophy-sized muskellunge in Minnesota has increased.


Stocking Genetics Research Adaptive management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors wish to thank the many Muskie, Inc. members who assisted us over the years in evaluating this new program. We also wish to thank R. Pierce, M. Drake, and D. Schupp, and four anonymous reviewers, for many helpful editorial comments on the draft manuscript.


  1. Eddy S, Surber T (1943) Northern fishes. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  2. Eddy S, Underhill JC (1974) Northern fishes, 3rd Edition. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  3. Koppelman JB, Philipp DP (1986) Genetic applications in muskellunge management Am Fish Soc Special Public 15:111–121Google Scholar
  4. Hanson D, Strand RF, Post DD, LeGrande WH, Fillbach S (1983) Muskellunge electrophoresis study Muskie 17:9–13Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Piller KR, Wilson CC, Lee CE, Lyons J (2005) Conservation genetics of inland lake trout in the upper Mississippi River Basin: stocked or native ancestry? Trans Am Fish Soc 134:789–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Strand RF (1986) Identification of principal spawning areas and seasonal distribution and movements of muskellunge in Leech Lake, Minnesota. Am Fish Soc Special Public 15:62–73Google Scholar
  8. Younk JA, Cook M (1992) Application of an angler diary for muskellunge Esox masquinongy. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife Investigational Report 420. St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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 B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations