By Koaw 2023,

BEST FEATURES FOR ID: (All of these features are discussed below in detail.)

1. Look for a partially scaled cheek and operculum.

2. Look for 6 or more submandibular pores on each side.

3. Get a count on the lateral line scales that will usually be 145 or more.

4. Count the branchiostegal rays.

5. Check out the patterning.

Try the Quick Esox ID App that may offer a fast analysis, if needed.

Although color and patterning are very useful to assess when identifying the species within the genus Esox, features that are countable (meristic) and measurable (morphometric) are more reliable, and as such, are the focus of this guide; these features are essential when comparing tiger muskellunge against muskellunge, as the two fishes may occasionally express very similar patterning and colors. It’s important to examine more than one feature for confident IDs.

MUSKY INTRO: The muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) [1] [2] is one of the most desired gamefishes in North America. This large fish is aptly nicknamed “The Fish of Ten-Thousand Casts” due to this fish’s elusiveness to capture on rod-and-reel. The musky, muskie, or maskinonge, is a top predatory fish in its local ecosystems.

Muskellunge populations have been on a ‘rollercoaster’ for the past 150 years. Once overfished both commercially and recreationally, muskellunge populations were struggling in many areas across North America. [3] Habitat loss, polluted waters, and other factors were also influencing population declines. Between the 1950’s and 1970’s, large muskellunge were hard to come by on many bodies of water. [4]

In the 1970’s, anglers began changing their tune on catch-and-release fishing for musky, recognizing that more prized-fish may be caught if fisheries implemented more conservative catch-and-release policies. Primarily led by angler-based organizations like Muskies Inc. and Canada Muskies, as well as researchers like Casselman and Crossman with the Cleithrum Project, a massive shift occurred in musky angling and fisheries management. [5-7] Nowadays, most anglers do not harvest their catches even if their catch is within the acceptable regulatory limits. Fisheries managers are constantly adjusting tactics for muskellunge management on individual bodies of water. Overall, trophy-sized catches are not as rare as they once were. Though, the muskellunge still remains an elusive fish to catch on rod-and-reel, especially those ever-so-desired trophies.

The muskellunge is most often confused with the tiger muskellunge (E. masquinongy x E. lucius), a hybrid between the muskellunge (E. masquinongy) and the northern pike (E. lucius); this tiger musky hybrid occurs naturally and is often artificially bred in hatcheries for stocking events. In parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin, the muskellunge (E. masquinongy) was once commonly referred to as a ‘tiger musky’ in local vernacular. [8] All mentions of “tiger musky” and “tiger muskellunge” in this guide refer to the hybrid, as is normal in current publications regarding Esox. The muskellunge is also often confused with the northern pike (E. lucius), another large esocid often inhabiting the same waters as the musky.

KEY FEATURE #1 – SCALATION ON CHEEK & OPERCULUM: This is the absolute first feature to look at when identifying members of the genus Esox. The muskellunge almost always shows a partially scaled cheek, usually around 10-50% of the cheek is covered with scales, sometimes between 60-70%, rarely up to 80%. These scales will be readily visible on specimens except the youngest of juveniles; specimens up to 8 in (20 cm) may not have yet developed any apparent scales. [9]

Of all non-hybrid members in Esox, only the muskellunge will typically show a partially scaled cheek. The tiger muskellunge may also show a partially scaled cheek, though, the tiger muskellunge’s cheek is often more scaled than the cheek of the musky, often 80-100%. Though uncommon, certain individuals of muskellunge may show scalation up to 80% on the cheek, [9] [10] hence why examining only one feature on a specimen is not sufficient for a confident identification.

If the cheek is partially scaled, and the pattern does not resemble anything like a northern pike, then examine KEY FEATURE #2 & #3 to help differentiate from tiger muskellunge. Also consider using the Quick Esox ID App to quickly differentiate your fish. If needed, use the Morphometrics Calculator for those tricky-to-ID specimens.

The operculum of the muskellunge, like the cheek, is partially scaled. The operculum is also typically partially scaled on northern pike and tiger muskellunge while on the American pickerel (Esox americanus) (grass/redfin/intergrades) and chain pickerel (Esox niger) the cheek and operculum are both mostly scaled. [11] Thus seeing any operculum that is mostly scaled will most definitely suggest a pickerel rather than a muskellunge, tiger muskellunge, or northern pike.

TO SUBSPECIES OR NOT TO SUBSPECIES… : Although certain subspecies have been described for the muskellunge, such as E. m. ohiensis (ohioensis), E. m. masquinongy, and E. m. immaculatus, [12-14] these listed-subspecies are not currently recognized as subspecies by most authorities; these aforementioned subspecies were originally taxonomically described as such primarily based on the populations of three general drainages and on the phenotypic expression of barring, spotting, and mostly plain appearances, respectively. However, geographic distribution does not clearly explain the phenotypic distribution; all three of the aforementioned phenotypes may be found in the same body of water in certain areas. The overall genetic and phylogeographic diversity within the species of muskellunge is quite complicated.

It’s only been in recent decades that genetic studies have started better evaluating and comparing different musky populations to determine if certain strains/races/ecotypes deserve taxonomic descriptions at the subspecies level. [15-17] Ergo, there still remains an extensive amount that needs to be studied and explored regarding musky genetics and evolution before confident subspecies descriptions can be confidently applied, if at all. Even now, it remains unclear the exact genetics responsible for the barring, spotting, and immaculate phenotypes. [17]

This identification guide will adhere to the current authoritative majority consensus on subspecies by not recognizing any of the previously described subspecies. However, it remains important to recognize that natural genetic variability does exist between many different populations of muskellunge, where these genetically unique populations are commonly referred to as strains.

Fisheries management officials take good care these days to ensure that the correct strain of muskellunge is stocked in an appropriate water source. Often the goal of these stocking events is to keep unique strains of muskellunge populations separated so as to not mix genetically distinct populations, therefore preserving the genetic integrity of local populations. Past stocking events have already mixed genetics between many populations. [15] [18] With current climate change, it may be practical to implement stocking events that purposely mix genes between strains, allowing for populations that are better capable of surviving in warming waters with those that may not do well with the changing temperatures and environmental shifts.

KEY FEATURE #2 – SUBMANDIBULAR PORES:

After examining the scales on the cheek and operculum, the next most valuable meristic feature for identification is the # of submandibular pores. These pores are small holes that sit on the underside of the jaw with two rows on each side. These pores will be readily visible to the naked-eye on any specimen larger than 12 in (30 cm) becoming harder to differentiate from random spots/flecks on smaller specimens. Only count obvious, fully developed pores.

The muskellunge almost always has 6 or more pores on a single side, where the sum of both sides is 12 or more. Usually, 6-10 pores will be found on a single side, or, if summing both sides, a range of 12-20. For example: If 6 pores are counted on the left side and 8 pores are counted on the right side then this count is often represented as 6/8.

The tiger musky will more often show fewer pores than musky, usually with counts between 4-5 & 6/7 & a typical summed-range of 9-13. However, roughly about 25% of the time, the tiger muskellunge will show 7/7, 7/8, or even 8/8 submandibular pores. Rarely will the tiger musky show a 9/8 pore count. If a fish resembles a tiger musky or a musky and has 4/5, 5/5, or 5/6 submandibular pores, then with high certainty, that fish is most likely a tiger musky. [11] It remains possible, though uncommon, for a muskellunge to show a 6/5 count of submandibular pores.

The northern pike often has 5/5 submandibular pores where 4/5 and 5/6 counts are not too uncommon. The pickerels all show fewer pores with counts usually at 4/4, where again, counts will range, typically between 4/3 and 4/5, rarely ever showing 6 submandibular pores on a single side.

BODY: Like all members of Esox, the body is a narrow, fairly robust build designed for quick bursts of speed. A single dorsal fin sits above and slightly anterior to an anal fin of similar size. The caudal fin, or tail fin, is forked (of which easily distinguishes any of the pike/pickerel/musky from the gar species that all have rounded caudal fins). The long, ‘duck-bill’-like snout houses a mouth with many sharp teeth.

This lie-and-wait predator is built for quick bursts of speed to capture prey. The muskellunge is primarily piscivorous (eats fish) but is also an opportunistic feeder; mice, small ducks and loons, and various other animals may be eaten by a musky. [19] [20]

PATTERN/COLORATION: Muskellunge juveniles have different colors and patterning than adults. Adult muskellunge may also have very different patterning and colors between populations as well as within the same population. The pattern on adults may vary between a body lacking pattern (but usually with some faded barring/spots at least on the last 1/3 of the body), a pattern full of spotting, a pattern of irregular vertical barring, or even a mixture of both barring and spotting. Muskellunge that have vertical barring and/or spotting are often confused with tiger muskellunge.

Body color is highly variable on mature muskellunge where various colors/shades of brown, tan, green, amber, silver, gold, and cream may appear. The dorsal region is almost always darker, typically with a brown to dark green coloration. The breast and belly are almost always white to cream. Fin color is also highly variable where typically there is some yellow, orange, brown, pink, and even red; though, often much of the red/pink color observed after capture is from where the fins have hemorrhaged. The caudal fin usually always has at least some dark spotting, as well as the dorsal and anal fins, to varying degrees. The paired fins on adults, consisting of the pectoral and pelvic fins, are usually with minimal spotting, if any at all. Muskellunge with heavy spotting along the body tend to have paired fins with a lot of spotting; these specimens also tend to have more spotting/markings on the head.

Tiger muskellunge, the hybrid between muskellunge and northern pike, should always be confidently differentiated from muskellunge based off of meristics and morphometrics (all discussed by the key features on this page) as well as color/patterning; IDs should not be based entirely on color/patterning. Tiger muskellunge patterning is often a more extreme variant of muskellunge patterning. At times, tiger muskies may look very similar to muskellunge. (A step-by-step ID for a hybrid tiger muskellunge is found here.)

It’s very difficult to tell young juvenile tiger muskellunge from young juvenile muskellunge based on patterning; only at about 4-6 weeks old (~2.7-3.5 in / ~7 – 9 cm) will the hybrid pattern begin to develop, the lateral bars start becoming more elongated, and the dorsal area just begins to show the reticulated pattern. [8] By four months, or about ~5.5 in (~14 cm), the hybrid pattern is very distinguishable from the muskellunge pattern; the tiger musky fingerling will show the bars that look like stripes of both dark slanted bars and the white/pale spaces between. These pale spaces will sooner reach the dorsum (back) on tiger muskellunge, forming that reticulated pattern, while muskellunge of this size typically maintain a mostly dark dorsum; (see adjacent image.)

However, some generalizations can be made for most specimens (late-stage juveniles/subadults/adults):
1) The tiger muskellunge will show a much more irregular barring pattern along the side of the body, usually with darker bars that are narrower than seen on muskellunge; the dark bars on the tiger musky are usually of similar size to the lighter color between them. Tiger muskellunge tend to have an overall pattern that seems more crowded and less organized than what is seen on pure musky. This barring usually creates more pronged, Y-like bars, and/or pale spots encircled by darker pigments that resemble chain-links, and sometimes, leopard spots. Keep in mind that pure muskies that are heavily spotted and/or barred may also show these chain-links and pronged bars, hence why meristic and morphometric features are so important to examine.

2) The patterning on the head of a tiger muskellunge is almost always more prominent, usually with a similar patterning seen on the body. Muskellunge patterning on the head is much less conspicuous, if present at all. Keep in mind that muskies showing spots on most of the body will almost always have a similar spotting pattern on the head.

Again, meristics and morphometrics should always be examined to confidently identify muskellunge from the hybrid tiger muskellunge. Use the Quick Esox ID App on this site to see if your fish fits either a muskellunge or tiger. Also, the Morphometrics Calculator found on this site is a great tool for a more confident ID on your muskellunge or tiger muskellunge.

One key morphometric feature that is easy to visualize on mature specimens and separates tiger muskellunge from muskellunge is the head size: A tiger musky most often has a larger head if examined against body size, most apparent on large adult specimens. The tiger musky also tends to have larger fins as well as a thicker and deeper body. Also, the paired fins on musky tend to have pointier tips while on tiger muskies the paired fins are more rounded, as is seen on northern pike; (though, I find this feature not to be that helpful for most anglers to use for identification; it’s not easy to tell in the field without a strong pre-existing familiarity with the musky, northern pike, and hybrid.)

KEY FEATURE #3 – LATERAL LINE SCALES: Getting a count on the lateral line scales may add more confidence to an identification for muskellunge vs. tiger muskellunge. On esocids within Esox, sometimes the main lateral line is difficult to find as many of the scales along the body may be pored. The lateral line scale count should be taken from the back of the gill plate to the hypural crease. It’s sometimes better to start counting at the back of the fish and move towards the head. This line will not be straight but rather flowing along a single row. If scales are missing (from an injury, etc.) then count scales that should be present.

Typically, the muskellunge will show a 145-160 lateral line scales with a range of 140-176. The tiger muskellunge usually shows 125-145 lateral line scales, where only a small overlap exists with the muskellunge range. Then northern pike usually shows 120-135 lateral line scales with a range of 105-148. Chain pickerel do not show more than 140 lateral line scales and the American pickerel (grass/redfin/intergrades) do not show more than 120 lateral line scales. [11] [21] [22]

SIZE: The muskellunge is one of the largest gamefishes in North America freshwater systems. Females are capable of attaining the largest sizes and at least capable of living to 30 years old. Most males do not reach sizes larger than 50 inches [23] [24] and it is the females that are truly desired to be captured as trophy specimens.

Though this species has been suggested to attain a max size of 72 in (183 cm) [25], all current official angling records are below 65 inches total length (165 cm). The ultimate length and growth per year of muskellunge populations varies greatly between different bodies of water. [24] Some bodies of water, often those that are mostly shallow and weedy, will never be able to produce 50”+ musky, a size often considered the minimum length to be ‘trophy-sized’. Sexually maturity is also quite variable. The youngest specimens found to show up at spawning grounds are 2-4 years old, where the vast majority are 5 years or older. [26] Sexual maturity is more confidently suggested to be attained at least as early as 3 years of age (as from the previous spawning ground observations only a single 2 year old specimen had been observed.) [27] Males typically reach sexual maturity sooner than females.

Length-to-age charts are most useful if specific to a single water body. Growth per year varies greatly across different bodies of water even within the same state/province. Check your local government’s wildlife/game/fishing department to see if they have charts for specific water bodies and/or cumulative charts for certain boundaries.

In the United States, possibly the largest fishing record of musky is from New York, registering a musky caught in 1957 weighing 69 lb 15 oz at 64.5 in (163.8 cm); (this record is not recognized by the IGFA.) The IGFA All-Tackle World Record is 67 lb 8 oz at 60.25 in (153.04 cm) from Hayward, Wisconsin. [28] Though, a larger specimen is recorded from Wisconsin’s DNR fishing records at 69 lb 11 oz at 63.5 in (161.3 cm). [29] According to the OFAH, the largest muskellunge caught in in Ontario was a specimen weighing 65 lb at 58 in (147 cm) caught in Lake Huron. [30] Various angling records exist between states/provinces as well as between line classes.

KEY FEATURE #4 – BRANCHIOSTEGAL RAYS: Counting branchiostegal rays on small specimens is easiest if a thumb or finger can be gently wedged underneath the branchiostegal membrane, just below the gill plate and cheek; (see photo.) Usually, these little bones will be readily visible; if needed, feeling the hardness will differentiate the bones from the surrounding soft membrane.

The muskellunge typically shows between 16-20 branchiostegal rays. The tiger muskellunge shows a similar amount of branchiostegal rays, often with 12-18, sometimes up to 20 and possibly more. [9] A branchiostegal ray count between 12-14 on a fish that looks like a musky/tiger musky will likely be a tiger musky.

Northern pike typically have between 13-16 branchiostegal rays, while the chain pickerel has between 14-17, sometimes 12-13. The American pickerel (grass/redfin/intergrades) typically have between 11-14. [11]

HABITAT: The muskellunge may be found in various temperate freshwater habitat types from the pools of small creeks to rivers & lakes of various sizes. [25] The muskellunge is often associated with cool water systems and not cold and warm water systems. Like all esocids in Esox, muskellunge are often associated with vegetation, though this habitat-type is most utilized in the younger stages of life; larger muskellunge will spend more time in deeper water during portions of the year.

In a general comparison to northern pike, the muskellunge will more often be found in deeper water; one study found a population of northern pike to spend most time in the shallower areas of the Niagara River while the muskellunge preferred the deeper, lotic waters. [31] Again, this preference of depth is only a generality, as large northern pike are well-known to be found in deeper waters at certain times of the year. [32] [33] Observations of large musky in shallow to moderately-shallower waters during summer is not uncommon; in Wisconsin during mid-to-late summers I’ve observed 45-50+ inch musky come up for baits in 10 feet of water within weedy bays. In the St. Lawrence River, muskies tagged with radiotelemetry devices were shown to usually inhabit areas at a greater depth than 10 m /32 ft during the winter and summer but utilized shallower waters during the spring and fall. [34] Likewise, tagged musky in the St. Croix River System all went below depths of 40 ft (12.2 m) where one went deeper than 70 ft (21.3 m). [35]

Muskellunge migrations are primarily in the spring, when movements to-and-from spawning grounds occur, and in the fall when the musky begins returning to winter habitats. The muskellunge seems to set up ‘home ranges’, to some extent, during the summer and winter. [36] [37] Spawning habitats of muskellunge may be quite variable and need to be studied more in order to protect and rehabilitate populations; little is known if muskellunge spawn at deeper depths than 1-3 meters. [38] Habitat loss, interspecific competition (such as with northern pike), invasive species that consume eggs (like round goby), may all contribute to having negative effects on musky spawning events.

TIP FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON SHORELINES: If you live on a lake/river and maintain a shoreline then it’s a good idea to keep various natural debris in the water from the shore’s edge to about 15ft out. The branches and logs from fallen trees provide natural habitat for various creatures including small fish as well as the prey items of small fish. This natural detritus offers better spawning opportunities for certain fishes. Shorelines that are ‘swept clean’ add to the loss of spawning habitat for muskellunge.

LOCATION: The muskellunge is endemic only to North America. Anthropogenic stocking events have spread the range of this species; however, many stocked populations need continually stockings to subsist populations.

The native range of muskellunge is centralized by the Great Lakes Basin where muskellunge are found both in and around the Great Lakes. Populations exist in the southwestern parts of Ontario and into Minnesota, within the Souris-Red-Rainy Basin. The range continues into large portions of Wisconsin, primarily in the north, and into more portions of Minnesota within the Upper Mississippi River Basin, extending into small areas of Iowa and Illinois adjacent to the Mississippi River.

Native populations exist in the Saint Lawrence Drainage of Southern Quebec and into Ontario. This range continues down into New York and Vermont via the Lake Champlain Basin. The Ohio River Basin, including parts of Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, most of Kentucky and West Virginia, and small portions of Virginia and North Carolina all house native populations. [39] Tennesse also has native populations.

EXPANDED RANGE (May contain some native range.) – Scattered populations of muskellunge may now be found in southern Manitoba, eastern parts of North Dakota, and perhaps in the northern parts of South Dakota. In Southeastern Quebec, the range has expanded from the Saint Lawrence drainage to include parts of Maine and New Brunswick. Scattered populations also exist along the Mid-Atlantic Basin, in the eastern parts of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia/Maryland along the Potomac River.

In Virginia, both the James River and Roanoke River waters now contain self-sustaining populations of muskellunge that are also stocked. North Carolina actively stocks muskellunge in the Nolichucky, French Broad, and New rivers. Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri actively stock muskellunge at various locations. Other locations, not listed here or on the map, may also have muskellunge. [40] [41] [42] Check your local government’s department of natural resources/game/fisheries/wildlife website to see if/where musky stocking events take place in your state or province.

FISHING: The muskellunge is a well sought-after gamefish in North America. Many factors contribute to why musky anglers are willing to spend so much time (and money) to capture this crème de la crème gamefish. Besides the tremendous fighting-power a large adult can offer, the elusiveness of this species adds a next-level challenge that anglers cannot find with most other local gamefishes.

When fisheries managers are describing angling pressure on certain bodies of water, they often describe the number of fish caught per hour spent fishing. For the muskellunge, these averages across all bodies of water are usually below 0.15 fish/hour (and that’s not many fish!) For example, in a 2012 publication by the Wisconsin DNR, they reported a catch rate of 0.043 fish/hour on their Class-A2 Action Waters—the waters that offered the best chance of catching musky. [43] That means, on average, an angler had to spend 23 hours and 15 minutes fishing before landing 1 muskellunge.

Though, some fisheries have been shown to produce much higher catch rates of quality fish, such as in the Niagara River during the mid-1970’s that suggested 1 quality musky was caught per 10 hours of angling effort. [44] These catch numbers fluctuate throughout time, even on the same body of water. Wildlife managers are becoming more and more proficient at maximizing fisheries to benefit anglers and musky populations. There is always a balance to be adjusted when stocking muskellunge and managing musky populations. Each body of water offers different challenges for wildlife managers.

FISHING TIPS: There is a plethora of resources out there regarding musky fishing. Anyone that wishes to become seriously devoted to this type of fishing should check out some published books and/or magazines.

I’ve been a musky angler for the better part of two decades. I’ve landed a good number of muskies and netted so many more. Patience is really the best virtue of any musky angler. Landing your first musky is something you’ll never forget. On a separate page, I offer some useful tips that will help anyone to get started chasing muskies: -MUSKY FISHING BASIC GEAR, HANDLING TIPS, & FISHING TIPS-

REFERENCES:

[1] S. L. Mitchill, "Masquinongy of the Great Lakes," Minerva, vol. 1, no. 16, 1824.
[2] R. Fricke, W. N. Eschmeyer and R. van der Laan, "ESCHMEYER'S CATALOG OF FISHES: GENERA, SPECIES, REFERENCES". http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
[3] E. J. Crossman, "The noble muskellunge: a review.," in Managing muskies: a treatise on the biology and propagation of Muskellunge in North America., vol. 15, G. E. Hall, Ed., Bethesda, MD, American Fisheries Society, pp. 1-13.
[4] J. M. Casselman, J. L. Withers and T. J. Howson, "Muskellunge Populations and Trophy Fisheries Can Be Productive and Sustainable," American Fisheries Society Symposium , vol. 85, pp. 1-32, 2017.
[5] Muskies Inc., "Conservation, Research, and Muskellunge Information Est. 1966". Retrieved from https://muskiesinc.org/
[6] Muskies Canada, "Muskies Canada Sport Fishing and Research Incorporated". Retrieved from https://muskiescanada.ca/
[7] J. M. Casselman and E. J. Crossman, "Size, age and growth of trophy Muskellunge and Muskellunge–Northern Pike hybrids—the Cleithrum Project, 1979– 1983. Managing muskies: a treatise on the biology and propagation of Muskellunge in North America.," American Fisheries Society, Special Publication, vol. 15, 1986.
[8] E. Crossman and K. Buss, "Hybridization in the Family Esocidae," J. Fish. Res. Bd., vol. 22, no. 5, 1965.
[9] J. D. Black and L. O. Williamson, "Artificial hybrids between muskellunge and northern pike.," Trans. of the Wisc. Aca. of Sci., vol. 38, pp. 299-314, 1946.
[10] S. Eddy, "Hybridization between Northern Pike (Esox lucius) and Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy)," Jour. of the Minn. Acad. of Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 38-43, 1944.
[11] J. M. Casselman, E. J. Crossman, P. E. Ihssen, J. D. Reist and H. E. Booke, "Identification of Muskellunge, Northern Pike, and their Hybrids," Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ., vol. 15, pp. 14-46, 1986.
[12] J. P. Kirtland, "Revision of the species belonging to the genus Esox, inhabiting Lake Erie and the River Ohio.," Proceedings of the Cleveland Academy of Natural Science, 1845-1859 (Reprint 1874).
[13] D. S. Jordan, A manual of vertebrate animals of the northern United States, including the district north and east of the Ozark mountains, south of the Laurentian hills, north of ... Virginia, and east of the Missouri River; inclusive of marine species., 5th Edition ed., 1888, pp. i-iii + 1-375.
[14] C. L. Hubbs, K. F. Lagler and G. R. Smith, Fishes of the Great Lakes Region: Revised Edition, University of Michigan Press, 2004.
[15] K. N. Turnquist, W., A. Larson, J. M. Farrell, P. A. Hanchin, K. L. Kapuscinski, L. M. Miller, K. T. Scribner, C. C. Wilson and B. L. Sloss, "Genetic structure of muskellunge in the Great Lakes region and the effects of supplementation on genetic integrity of wild populations," J. of Great Lakes Research, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1141-1152, 2017.
[16] J. B. Koppelman and D. P. Philipp, "Genetic Applications in Muskellunge management.," Managing muskies: a treatise of the biology and propagation of Muskellunge in North America, pp. 111-121.
[17] L. M. Miller, J. M. Farrell, K. L. Kapuscinski, K. Scribner, B. L. Sloss, K. N. Turnquist and C. C. Wilson, "A Review of Muskellunge Population Genetics: Implications for Management and Future Research Needs," American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol. 85, pp. 385-414, 2017.
[18] L. M. Miller, S. W. Mero and J. A. Younk, "The genetic legacy of stocking muskellunge in a northern Minnesota lake.," Trans. of the Am, Fish. Soc., vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 602-615, 2009.
[19] D. H. Wahl and R. A. Stein, "Comparative Population Characteristics of Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), and Their Hybrid (E. masquinongy x E. lucius)," Can. J. of Fish. & Aq. Sci., vol. 50, pp. 1961-1968, 1993.
[20] S. A. Weithman and R. O. Anderson, "Survival, Growth, and Prey of Esocidae in Experimental Systems," Trans. of the Amer. Fish. Soc., vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 424-430, 1977.
[21] Koaw, "Select Morphometrics and Meristics of Esocids," Koaw Nature - KNFS, 2023. Retrieved from http://www.koaw/org/esoxdatakoaw
[22] E. J. Crossman, "A Taxonomic Study of Esox americanus and Its Subspecies in Eastern North America," Copeia, vol. 1, pp. 1-20, 1966
[23] M. D. Faust, D. A. Isermann, M. A. Luehring and M. J. Hansen, "Muskellunge Growth Potential in Northern Wisconsin: Implications for Trophy Management," NA Journal of Fisheries Management, pp. 765-774, 2015.
[24] J. M. Casselman, C. J. Robinson and E. J. Crossman, "Growth and Ultimate Length of Muskellunge from Ontario Water Bodies," NA Journal of Fisheries Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 271-290, 1999.
[25] L. M. Page and B. M. Burr, Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011
[26] E. J. Crossman, "Reproductive Homing in Muskellunge, Esox masquinongy," Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 1803-1812, 1990.
[27] R. F. Stocek, P. J. Cronin and P. D. Seymour, "The Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), distribution and biology of a recent addition to the ichthyofauna of New Brunswick," Canadian Field Naturalist, vol. 113, pp. 230-234, 1999.
[28] IGFA - The International Game Fish Association, "Muskellunge - Esox masquinongy," IGFA, 2022. Retrieved from https://igfa.org/igfa-world-records-search/?search_type=CommonName&search_term_1=Muskellunge
[29] Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, "Hook and Line Record Fish," WDNR, 2022. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Fishing/recordfish/hookline.html
[30] Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, "Ontario Record Fish Registry," OFAH. doi:https://www.ofah.org/programs/ofahontario-record-fish-registry/
[31] E. J. Harrison and W. F. Hadley, "Ecologic separation of sympatric muskellunge and modern pike.," Amer. Fish. Soc. - Spec. Pub., vol. 11, pp. 129-134, 1978.
[32] A.J. McLane, McClane's New Standard Fishing Encyclopedia, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
[33] A. Lindner, F. Buller, D. Stange, D. Csanda, R. Lindner, B. Ripley and J. Eggers, Northern Pike Secrets, In-Fisherman.
[34] A. Schiavone, "Observations on muskellunge in Thousand Island region of the St. Lawrence River.," International Symposium on Muskellunge (in book), pp. 21-22, April 1984.
[35] J. Stiras, "Movement of Muskellunge in the St. Croix River System (ABSTRACT)," American Fisheries Society Symposium 85, p. 181, 2017.
[36] S. F. Morrison and L. H. Warren, "Seasonal Movements of Muskellunge in North Bend Lake, West Virginia (Ext. abstract)," American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol. 85, pp. 171-174, 2017.
[37] S. J. Kerr and B. Jones, "Movements of Muskellunge in the Saint John River Based on Volunteer Tagging Project, 2006-2015," Amer. Fisher. Soc. Symposium , vol. 85, pp. 39-50, 2017.
[38] D. P. Crane, L. M. Miller, J. S. Diana, J. M. Casselman, J. M. Farrell, K. L. Kapuscinski and J. K. Nohner, "Muskellunge and Northern Pike Ecology and Management: Important Issues and Research Needs," Fisheries, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 258-267, 2015.
[39] North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, "Muskellunge," NCWRC, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Fish/Muskellunge#52431796-tips-places-to-fish
[40] E. J. Crossman, "Taxonomy and Distribution of North American Esocids," American Fisheries Society Special Publication, no. 11, pp. 13-26, 1978.
[41] USGS-NAS, "Esox masquinongy Muskellunge Point Map," NAS- Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, 2022. Retrieved from https://nas.er.usgs.gov/viewer/omap.aspx?SpeciesID=679
[42] iNaturalist, "Esox masquinongy Muskellunge," iNaturalist - Cal. Acad. of Sci. Nat. Geo, 2022.  Retrieved from https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/100429-Esox-masquinongy
[43] T. Simonson, "Muskellunge Management Update - FH - 508," Wisonsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, 2012.
[44] R. E. Craig, "The Niagara River maskinonge (Esox masquinongy)," Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Niagara District Manuscript Report, 1976.
[45] American Fisheries Society, Muskellunge Management: fifty years of cooperation among anglers, scientists, and fisheries biologists., K. L. Kapuscinski, T. D. Simonson, D. P. Crane, S. J. Kerr, J. S. Diana and J. M. Farrell, Eds., Bethesda: AFS Symposium 85, 2017.