Effects of angling with a single-hook and live bait on muskellunge survival

  • Terry L. MargenauEmail author
Special Issue-Crossman
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes 26 book series (DEBF, volume 26)


Use of live bait for angling of muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, is popular in Wisconsin. A traditional method utilizes a large hook through the bait fish’s snout, which requires the muskellunge to swallow the bait prior to hook set. Adult muskellunge (>76 cm; 30 in) were held in lined hatchery ponds and caught while fishing with live bait on 10/0 size single hooks. The leader was cut and the muskellunge was released when hooked in the stomach. Survival was monitored for up to 1 year. No immediate (<24 h) mortality occurred. However, 22% of hooked muskellunge died within 50 days and 83% died within 1 year. Necropsies revealed extensive trauma to the stomach and other organs from hooks, along with systemic bacterial infections. Highest mortality on both hooked and control fish occurred over winter through spring. This peak mortality may be associated with natural stressors that occur during the spring spawning period. Mortality rates observed in this study are considered unacceptable for trophy management of muskellunge. Although use of live bait for muskellunge is traditional in Wisconsin, terminal tackle such as quick-strike rigs that hook fish in the mouth or buccal cavity should enhance the chances a released muskellunge will survive.


Esox masquinongy Mortality Catch and release 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beggs GL, Holeton GF, Crossman EJ (1980) Some physiological consequences of angling stress in muskellunge, Esox masquinongy Mitchill. J Fish Biol 17:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bettoli PW, Osborne RS (1998) Hooking mortality and behavior of striped bass following catch and release angling. North Am J Fish Manag 18:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casselman JM, Crossman EJ, Robinson CJ (1996) Assessing sustainability of trophy muskellunge fisheries. In: Kerr SJ, Oliver CH (eds) Managing muskies in the ‘90s. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Workshop Proceedings WP-007, Kemptville, pp 29–40Google Scholar
  4. Harrison EJ, Hadley WF (1978) Ecological separation of sympatric muskellunge and northern pike. Am Fish Soc Special Publ 11:129–134Google Scholar
  5. Heiting S (1992) Musky mastery – the techniques of top guides. Krause publications, Iola, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson LD (1971) Growth of known-age muskellunge in Wisconsin and validation of age and growth determination methods. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 49. Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Lyons J, Margenau T (1986) Population dynamics of stocked adult muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) in Lac Court Oreilles, Wisconsin 1961–1977. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource Technical Bulletin 160. Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Margenau TL, Petchenik JB (2004) Social aspects of muskellunge management in Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manag 24:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Margenau TL, AveLallemant SP (2000) Effects of a 40-inch minimum length limit on muskellunge in Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manag 20:986–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Muir BS (1964) Vital statistics of Esox masquinongy in Noiges Creek, Ontario. II. Population size, natural mortality and the effect of fishing. J Fish Res Board Can 21:727–746Google Scholar
  11. Muoneke MI, Childress WM (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Rev Fish Sci 2:123–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Neumann RM, Willis DW (1994) Relative weight as a condition index for muskellunge. J Fresh Ecol 9:13– 18Google Scholar
  13. Newman DL, Storck TW (1986) Angler catch, growth, and hooking mortality of tiger muskellunge in small centrarchid-dominated impoundments. Am Fish Soc Special Publ 15:346–351Google Scholar
  14. Simonson TD, Hewett SW (1999) Trends in Wisconsin’s muskellunge fishery. North Am J Fish Manag 19:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spangler GR (1968) Angler harvest and mortality of Esox masquinongy in Pigeon and Sturgeon lakes, Ontario. J Fish Res Board Can 25:1145–1154Google Scholar
  16. Weithman AS, Anderson RO (1978) Angling vulnerability of Esocidae. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of Southeast Association Game and Fish Commissioners 30:99–102Google Scholar
  17. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 1996. Wisconsin muskellunge waters. WDNR. Revision 1-3600 (82), MadisonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesSpoonerUSA

Personalised recommendations