Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Muskellunge

Synonyms and Other Names: Esox ohiensis Kirtland, 1854; Muskie, Musky

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Muskellunge, Esox masquinongy, are characterized by their elongate, moderately compressed and slightly flattened body. Oblique stripes, spots or blotches overlay the silver colored body, the belly is white in color with small spots. Fins are green or red-brown with dark blotches. The top of the head is unscaled and the snout is long and duckbill-like. The Muskellunge has a large mouth with strong canine teeth in its lower jaw and on the roof of its mouth. Its tongue features short, sharp brush-like teeth (Becker 1983).

Three subspecies are sometimes recognized: Esox masquinongy masquinongy, a spotted form which occurs in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes and their tributaries; Esox masquinongy immaculatus, a form with either no pattern or barring which occurs in Wisconsin, Minnesota, northwestern Ontario, and southeastern Manitoba; and Esox masquinongy ohioensis, a form with bars or diffuse spots and blotches which occurs in the Ohio River and its tributaries (Becker 1983).

While similar in appearance to the Northern pike (Esox lucius), Muskellunge can often be distinguished from pike based on coloration. Additionally, Muskellunge have 6-9 sensory pores on each side of their lower jaw whereas Northern pike have 5 or less pores. Muskellunge also have relatively pointed tail fins relative to a Northern pike (Minnesota DNR 2017).  The hybrid Tiger muskie (Esox masquinongy x lucius) is also present in the Great Lakes region, these grow faster and larger than either of the parent species, are characterized by dark stripes on a lighter background, have 5-6 sensory pores and are otherwise intermediate between the two parents in shape and coloring.

Size: 183 cm.

Native Range: St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins, from Quebec to southeastern Manitoba; south in the Appalachians to Georgia and in the west to Iowa (Page and Burr 1991). Crossman (1978) gave a distribution map. Although never reported from Mississippi, considering the fact that Muskellunge are (or were) native to the main Tennessee River, the species almost certainly historically entered the extreme northeastern part of that state (Gilbert, personal communication).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Ecology: Muskellunge are typically found in lakes with numerous submerged weed beds but can also be found in clear, sterile lakes with almost no weeds. Lakes with extensive, deep and shallow basins with tributary streams are preferred. Muskellunge are considered a coolwater species preferring temperatures from 0.55°C to 25.5°C despite optimum growth rates occurring at approximately 25.5°C. The species can withstand temperatures up to 90°F. Compared to other species in the same habitat Muskellunge are more tolerant of low oxygen levels (Michigan DNR 2012; Becker 1983).

Muskellunge spawn in the spring in shallow bays. Ideal temperature for spawning is 12.7°C. Eggs are scattered in shallow waters over submerged woody debris or over vegetation. Females produce 22,000-180,000 eggs which take 8-14 days to hatch. Young Muskellunge absorb the yolk sac after hatching and begin to prey on other organisms. Growth is rapid in the first three years, growth rate vary depending on water temperatures and available food. Females tend to grow faster and larger than males. As they grow larger, growth rates begin to level off.. Individuals can live up to 30 years or more (Michigan DNR 2012). Natural hybridization between the Muskellunge and Northern Pike occurs in waters where both species are present resulting in the Tiger Muskellunge. Male hybrids are sterile and females are frequently fertile. Reproduction can be limited by water temperatures below 10°C, fluctuating water temperatures, low oxygen, predation by fish and invertebrates on eggs and fry, prey availability, and hybridization with the Northern pike (Michigan DNR 2012; Becker 1983).

After hatching Muskellunge feed on other fish species including minnows and smaller Muskies. As they get larger, Muskellunge begin to prey on frogs, ducklings, and crayfish. Adult Muskellunge will consume fish up to a third their own length and prefer longer, cylindrical fish to spiny, deep bodied panfish. This preference is attributed to their metabolism which favors a single, large meal instead of multiple small ones (Michigan DNR 2012). Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, Walleye, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, Rock Bass, sunfish, and other Muskellunge will prey on young Muskellunge. In hatcheries, giant water bugs, diving beetles, and large larvae of some insects were seen to be significant predators of recently hatched Muskellunge.

Means of Introduction: Intentionally stocked for sportfishing. According to Pflieger (1997) this species was first stocked in Missouri reservoirs in 1966 for the purpose of providing another trophy-sized fish and a large predator capable of preying on the many Gizzard shad and other forage fish too large to be eaten by Largemouth bass. Muskellunge found in one Missouri creek had escaped from hatchery ponds (Pflieger 1997).

Status: Reported from above areas, some of which may have established populations. Extirpated in California (Hubbs et al. 1979) and in Georgia, where it has not been seen since 1957 (Dahlberg and Scott 1971b). About 25% of all Muskellunge populations in Wisconsin are the result of stocking (Becker 1983). Crossman and McAllister (1986) reported the species as introduced into the Souris and Red River drainage was a recent one.  They were stocked in the Minnedosa and Assiniboine rivers, both tributaries of the Red River.

Impact of Introduction: This species likely has impacts similar to that of northern pike, namely reducing the numbers of small fish by way of predation. Muskellunge and young largemouth bass M. salmoides frequent the same habitats, brush piles and beds of vegetation. In two Wisconsin lakes, this resulted in the decline of the largemouth bass population (Becker 1983).

Remarks: Wolter et al. (2013) examined demographics and rate of dam escapement at a reservoir in Illinois, finding 25% of the population escaped over the dam and suggested mitigation practices.

References: (click for full references)

Anonymous. 1994b. Fishes of the Dakotas. Brochure. American Fisheries Society Dakota Chapter, and North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

Axon, J.R. 1981. Development of a muskellunge fishery at Cave Run Lake, Kentucky, 1974-1979. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1:134-143.

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press Madison, WI. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.FishesWI.

Bouc, K. 1987. The fish book. Nebraskaland Magazine 65(1):1-130.

Buchanan, T.M. 1973. Key to the fishes of Arkansas. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, AR.

Burr, B.M., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Scientific and Technical Series No. 4. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY.

Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.

Dahlberg, M.D., and D.C. Scott. 1971a. The freshwater fishes of Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:1-64.

Dahlberg, M.D., and D.C. Scott. 1971b. Introductions of freshwater fishes in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:245-252.

Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

Fowler, H.W. 1906. The fishes of New Jersey. Pages 35-477 in Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum (1905), part II. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.

Fowler, H.W. 1907. A supplementary acount of the fishes of New Jersey. Pages 251-408 in Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum (1906), part III. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

Fowler, H.W. 1919. A list of fishes of Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 32:49-74.

Fowler, H.W. 1920. A list of the fishes of New Jersey. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 33:139-170.

Fowler, H.W. 1952. A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia CIV:89-151.

GLMRIS. 2011. Inventory of Available Controls for Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern, Chicago Area Waterway System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Hanten, R.L. - Department. of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. Response to NBS-G nonindigenous questionaire.

Harlan, J.R., E.B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA.

Hartel, K.E. 1992. Non-native fishes known from Massachusetts freshwaters. Occasional Reports of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Fish Department, Cambridge, MA. 2. September. pp. 1-9.

Horak, D. - Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. 1995.

Howells, R.G. 1992. Annotated list of introduced non-native fishes, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants in Texas waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 78, Austin, TX.

Hubbs, C.L., W.I. Follett, and L.J. Dempster. 1979. List of the fishes of California. Occassional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences 133:1-51.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Places to fish. http://dnr.state.il.us/ftp/available_documents/places.pdf.

Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Kendall, W.C. 1917. The pikes: their geographical distribution habits, culture, and commercial importance. U.S. Commissioners Fisheries Report for 1917. Bureau of Fisheries Document 853. 45 pp.

Kircheis, F.W. 1994. Update on freshwater fish species reproducing in Maine. Maine Naturalist 2(1):25-28.

Lampman, B.H. 1946. The coming of the pond fishes. Binfords and Mort, Portland, OR.

Lee, D. S., A. Norden, C. R. Gilbert, R. Franz. 1976. A list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Chesapeake Science 17(3):205-211.

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.

Meronek, T.G., P.M. Bouchard, E.R. Buckner, T.M. Burri, K.K. Demmerly, D.C. Hatleli, R.A. Klumb, S.H. Schmidt, and D.W. Coble. 1996. A Review of Fish Control Projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:63-74.

Michigan DNR. 2012. Muskellunge: A Michigan Resource. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Muskellunge_-_A_Michigan_Resource_-_May_2012_386501_7.pdf. Accessed on 08/15/2017.

Milner, J.W. 1874. The progress of fish-culture in the United States. Pages 524-566 in Report of the commissioner for 1872 and 1873. U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.

Minnesota DNR. 2017. Muskellunge biology and identification. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/biology.html. Accessed on 08/15/2017.

Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1974. The fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Patrick, P.H., A.E. Christie, D. Sager, C. Hocutt, and J. Stauffer, Jr. 1985. Responses of fish to a strobe light/air-bubble barrier. Fisheries Research 3:157-172.

Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.

Phillips, G.L., W.D. Schmid, J.C. Underhill. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Pritchard, D.L., O.D. May, Jr., and L. Rider. 1976. Stocking of predators in the predator-stocking-evaluation reservoirs. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 30(1976):108-113.

Raasch, M.S., and V.L. Altemus, Sr. 1991. Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes - a popular account. Delaware State College for the Study of Del-Mar-Va Habitats and the Society of Natural History of Delaware.

Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.

Rinne, J.N. 1994. The effects of introduced fishes on native fishes: Arizona, southwestern United States. World fisheries congress, May 1992, Athens, Greece.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.

Ryckman, F.  1981.  A revised checklist of the fishes of North Dakota, with a brief synopsis of each species distribution within the state.  North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck.

Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York state. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Smith, H.M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. Pages 379-472 in Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission, Vol. XV, for 1895.

Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Soldwedel, R.H. - Chief, Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. Response to NBS-G non-indigenous questionaire. 1992.

Southwick, R. - District Fisheries Supervisor, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, VA. Response to NBS-G non-indigenous questionaire. 1992.

Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.

Stauffer, J.R., Jr., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

Stiles, E.W. 1978. Vertebrates of New Jersey. Edmund W. Stiles, Somerset, NJ.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.

Wahl, D.H. 1999. An Ecological Context for Evaluating the Factors Influencing Muskellunge Stocking Success. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(1):238-248.

Walker, P. - Colorado Division of Wildlife, Brush, CO.

Whitworth, W. R. 1996. Freshwater Fishes of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin 114.

Wolter, M.H., C.S. DeBoom, and D.H. Wahl. 2013. Field and laboratory evaluation of dam escapement of muskellunge. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 33(4):829-838. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02755947.2013.812585

Other Resources:
US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Risk Screening Summary for Esox masquinongy

Author: Fuller, P., Neilson, M.E., Hopper, K. and Sturtevant, R.

Peer Review Date: 7/7/2015

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.