Advertisement

Characteristics of Ontario muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) fisheries based on volunteer angler diary information

  • Steven J. KerrEmail author
CROSSMAN
  • 274 Downloads
Part of the Developments in environmental biology of fishes 26 book series (DEBF, volume 26)

Abstract

This paper consolidates and summarizes information on Ontario muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, sport fisheries derived from angler diary programs sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Muskies Canada Incorporated (MCI) from 1979 to 2004. Interest in muskellunge as a sport fish has increased substantially over the past 10–15 years. Muskellunge catches were found to be highly correlated with angling effort. Catch rates, expressed in terms of catch-per-unit-of-effort (CUE), have improved over the past decade to the point where, in 2001, the provincial CUE was 0.119. The long term catch rate is 0.069. This improvement in angling quality is attributed to new minimum size limit regulations and increased catch-and-release angling practices. Over the period from 1979–2004, release rates by muskellunge anglers have averaged 94%. Based on a sample size of 9,499 fish, the mean size of angled muskellunge over the past 26 years was 37.0 inches (94 cm). Numerous fish exceeding 50 inches (127 cm) are angled from Ontario waters each year. The incidence of lymphosarcoma, a highly contagious, malignant blood cancer, has averaged only 2% since 1979. Based on an analysis of this information, Ontario’s muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. Volunteer angler diary programs provide an accurate and cost-effective means to monitor the status of muskellunge fisheries in Ontario.

Keywords

Esox masquinongy Angler diary Recreational fishery Catch-and-release 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson LE, Thompson PC (1991) Development and implementation of the angler diary monitoring program for Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories. Am Fish Soc Symp 12:457–475Google Scholar
  2. Bijesterveld L (1983) The 1981 British Columbia tidal water sportfishing diary program. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1717. Vancouver, British Columbia, p 25Google Scholar
  3. Borawa JC (1990) Muskellunge fishery angler diary program. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-24–15. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina, p 7Google Scholar
  4. Bray GS, Schramm HL (2001) Evaluation of a statewide volunteer angler diary program for use as a fishery assessment tool. North Am J Fish Manag 21:606–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casselman JM, Robinson CJ, Crossman EJ (1999) Growth and ultimate length of muskellunge from Ontario waterbodies. North Am J Fish Manag 19:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke SJ, Dunlop WI, MacLennan D, Power G (2000) Applications and characteristics of angler diary programmes in Ontario, Canada. Fish Manag Ecol 7:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelius RR, Margenau TL (1999) Effects of length limits on muskellunge in Bone Lake, Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manag 19:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dent RJ (1986) A case history of voluntary catch-and-release of muskellunge with management implications for fishery programs. Am Fish Soc Special Public 15:316–322Google Scholar
  9. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2003) 2000 survey of recreational fishing in Canada. Economic and Commercial Analysis Report No. 165. Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy M, Mosindy T (2001) 1988–1999 Lake of the Woods musky angler diary surveys. Northwest Science and Technology Aquatics Update 2001–01. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Kenora, Ontario, p 6Google Scholar
  11. Ferencak J (2004) Musky creel project, 1987–2003. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Springfield, Illinois, 26 p + appendicesGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster RF, Colby PJ (1999) Status of the Lac Seul muskellunge fishery. Northern Bioscience Ecological Consulting. Thunder Bay, Ontario, p 58Google Scholar
  13. Gasbarino PL (1986) Catch and release of muskellunge––philosophy and methods. Am Fish Soc Special Publ 15:300–308Google Scholar
  14. Haas RC (1978) The muskellunge in Lake St. Clair. Am Fish Soc Special Public 11:334–339Google Scholar
  15. Hacker VA (1973) The results of a ten year voluntary muskellunge creel census at Little Green Lake, Green Lake County, Wisconsin, 1963–1972. Fisheries Management Report No. 58. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Oshkosh, Wisconsin, p 14Google Scholar
  16. Hart ML (1980) 1979 musky angler diary volunteer program, St. Lawrence River. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Brockville, Ontario, p 5Google Scholar
  17. Kerr SJ (1998) Muskellunge regulations in Ontario during the past fifty years (1949–1998). Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario, p 34Google Scholar
  18. Kerr SJ (2001) Atlas of muskellunge streams and rivers in Ontario. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario, p 16Google Scholar
  19. Knapp ML, Goeman TJ (2005) Catch and harvest by fishing guides compared with other anglers in five central Minnesota lakes. N Am J Fish Manag 25:885–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis C, Potter B (1980) A summary of maskinonge harvest from Rice Lake, 1979. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Lindsay, Ontario, p 5Google Scholar
  21. MacLennan D (1996) Changes in the muskellunge fishery and population of Lake St. Clair after an increase in the minimum size limit, pp 19–27. In: Kerr SJ, Olver CH (eds) “Managing Muskies in the 90s” Workshop Proceedings. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Kemptville, Ontario, 169 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Mandrak NE, Crossman EJ (1992) A checklist of Ontario freshwater fishes annotated with distribution maps. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Ontario, p 176Google Scholar
  23. Margenau TL, Petchenik JB (2004) Social aspects of muskellunge management in Wisconsin. North Am J Fish Manag 24:82–93Google Scholar
  24. Margenau TL, Meiller L, Nelson E, Stedman RC, Johnson D (1992) Opinions of anglers who fish muskellunge in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Spooner, Wisconsin, p 43Google Scholar
  25. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1987) Atlas of muskellunge lakes in Ontario. Fisheries Branch. Toronto, Ontario, p 34Google Scholar
  26. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1999) 1998 Kawartha lakes angler diary program. Kawartha Lakes Fisheries Assessment Unit Update 1999–5. Lindsay, Ontario, p 2Google Scholar
  27. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Muskies Canada Inc., Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and the Royal Ontario Museum (1999) Size limit regulations for Ontario muskellunge: a new approach. Peterborough, Ontario, 12 p + appendicesGoogle Scholar
  28. Schiavone A (1987) 1986 muskellunge cooperator report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Watertown, New York, p 3Google Scholar
  29. Simonson TD, Hewett SW (1999) Trends in Wisconsin’s muskellunge fishery. N Am J Fish Manag 19:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sonstegard RA, Hnath JG (1978) Lymphosarcoma in muskellunge and northern pike: Guidelines for disease control. Am Fish Soc Special Public 11:235–237Google Scholar
  31. Sztramko LK, Dunlop WI, Powell SW, Sutherland RG (1991) Applications and benefits of an angler diary program on Lake Erie. Am Fish Soc Symp 12:520–528Google Scholar
  32. Thompson PC, Anderson LE, Ellison HR (1988) Angler catch and fishing effort diary: 1983 and 1984 pilot study at Plummer’s Great Slave Lake lodge, Northwest Territories. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1631. Winnipeg, Manitoba, p 18Google Scholar
  33. Walker CA, Schramm HL (2004) Evaluation of catch card reporting at Mississippi state lakes. 2004 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 58:123–129Google Scholar
  34. Younk JA, Cook MF (1992) Applications of an angler diary for muskellunge, Esox masquinongy. Fisheries Investigational Report 420. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota, p 21Google Scholar
  35. Younk JA, Pereira DL (2003) An examination of Minnesota’s muskellunge waters. Fisheries Investigational Report 498. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota, p 30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesPeterboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations