Advertisement

Determining minimum ultimate size, setting size limits, and developing trophy standards and indices of comparable size for maintaining quality muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) populations and sports fisheries

  • John M. CasselmanEmail author
Special Issue Crossman
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes 26 book series (DEBF, volume 26)

Abstract

Growth and ultimate size can provide important population insights and a sound biological basis for setting length limits, which can be the best single regulation for preventing overexploitation of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) populations. A system was developed, using cleithral age and total length at age confidence limits (CL) data, to determine reproductive and growth potential (ultimate size) for calculating and setting increased size limits based on minimum reproductive size (upper 99% CL at age at first maturity + 2 year) and minimum ultimate size (MUS) calculated from the lower 99% CL—minimum ultimate size limit (MUSL). MUS also provides a trophy standard and an index of relative size for comparing trophy potential of individuals within and among populations. Guidelines are provided for determining minimum sample size (mean ± 95% confidence interval = 12 ± 4) and minimum age (8–10 ± 2.0 year) required to produce valid von Bertalanffy growth trajectories. MUS, MUSL, and trophy standards for both length and estimated weight are provided for female and male muskellunge from 14 Ontario sources. Mean MUS, or trophy standard, for females was 115 ± 10.3 cm (MUSL range 75–135) and 11.1 ± 2.6 kg (2.5–17.5) and for males was 95 ± 7.5 cm (66–110) and 6.1 ± 1.3 kg (1.9–9.2). These indices can precisely define growth and growth potential for muskellunge populations and individuals and can be used to better manage and maintain or improve the quality of muskellunge populations and fisheries.

Keywords

Muskellunge Size limit Trophy standard Minimum ultimate size Growth index Length Weight Age Growth potential L-infinity 99% confidence limits 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benike HM (2004) Evaluation of a 32 inch minimum length limit for northern pike Largon Lake, Polk County, WI, MWBIC Code (2668100)Google Scholar
  2. Casselman JM (1974) External sex determination of northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus. Trans Am Fish Soc 103:343–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casselman JM (1996) Age, growth and environmental requirements of pike, Esox lucius. In: Craig J (ed) Pike: biology and exploitation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 69–101Google Scholar
  4. Casselman JM (2002) Effects of temperature, global extremes, and climate change on year-class production of warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishes in the Great Lakes Basin, pp 39–59. In: McGinn NA (ed) Proceedings of American Fisheries Society Symposium 32, Fisheries in a changing climate. 295pGoogle Scholar
  5. Casselman JM, Crossman EJ (1986) Size, age and growth of trophy muskellunge and muskellunge-northern pike hybrids—The Cleithrum Project, 1979–1983, pp 93–110. In: Hall GE (ed) Managing muskies—a treatise on the biology and propagation of muskellunge in North America. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 15Google Scholar
  6. Casselman JM, Crossman EJ, Robinson CJ (1996) Assessing sustainability of trophy muskellunge fisheries, pp 29–39. In: Kerr SJ, Olver CH (eds) Managing muskies in the ‘90s. Proceedings Southern Region Science and Technoloty Transfer Unit Workshop, WP-007, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, 169pGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Casselman JM, Scott KA (2000) A general procedures manual for CSAGES—calcified structure age-growth data extraction software (Version 5.2). Spec. Publ. Glenora Fisheries Station, Aquatic Ecosystems Science Section, OMNR, Picton, Ont., 90pGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossman EJ, Casselman JM (1996) The cleithrum project: an update to 1995. In: Kerr SJ, Olver CH (eds) Managing muskies in the ‘90s. Proc. South. Reg. Sci. Tech. Transfer Unit Workshop, WP-007, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, pp 147–151Google Scholar
  10. Dunning DJ, Ross Q, Gladden J (1982) Evaluation of minimum size limits for St. Lawrence river northern pike. North Am J Fish manage 2:171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt RL (1970) A compendium of research on angling regulations for brook trout conducted at Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Research Report 54, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  12. Koppleman JB, Philipp DP (1986) Genetic application in muskellunge management. A Fish Soc Special Publ 15:111–121Google Scholar
  13. Lebeau B, Pageau G (1989) Comparative urogenital morphology and external sex determination in muskellunge, Esox masquinongy Mitchill. Canadian J Zoo 67:1053–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Margenau TL, Hanson DA (1996) Survival and growth of stocked muskellunge: effects of genetics and environmental factors. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 172, May 1996Google Scholar
  15. Nordwall F, Lundberg P, Eriksson T (2000) Comparing size-limit strategies for exploitation of a self-thinned stream fish population. Fish Manage Ecol 2000(7):413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1983) The identification of overexploitation. Report of SPOF working group No. 15. Strategic Planning for Ontario Fisheries Policy Development, Toronto, pp 84Google Scholar
  17. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1986) Report of the committee to review provincial muskellunge angling regulations. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Fisheries Policy Committee, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  18. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1999) Size limit regulations for Ontario muskellunge: a new approach. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Fisheries Policy Committee, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  19. Power M, Power G (1996) Comparing minimum-size and slot limits for brook trout management. North Am J Fish Manage 16:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quinn NWS, Korver RM, Hicks FJ, Monroe BP, Hawkins RR (1994) An empirical model of lentic brook trout. North Am J Fish Manage 14:692–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson CJ (2005) Factors affecting estimates of year-class strength and growth of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy): a long-lived, low-density, trophy fish. Watershed Ecosystems Graduate Program, Trent University, Peterborough, pp 222Google Scholar
  22. Wright S (1992) Guidelines for selecting regulations to manage open-access fisheries for natural populations of anadromous and resident trout in stream habitats. North Am J Fish Manage 12:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Younk JR, Strand RF (1992) Performance evaluation of four muskellunge Esox masquinongy strains in two Minnesota lakes. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Investigational Report 418Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations