“Why don’t we hear about more studies of pike and muskies?” an angler asks. “After all, they’re among the most imposing predators and rank high in angler preference wherever they’re found.” It’s true that fishery science journals have increased in number and page count, so maybe the relative lack of research on pike and muskies is indeed surprising.

The world of fishery science is moving fast, thanks to new technology and methods of genetic analysis, as well as new emphasis on studying whole ecosystems rather than single species. More studies now focus on threatened or endangered species and the habitats they rely on. The effects of new invasive aquatic species is another hot topic. But these areas of investigation don’t much apply to pike or muskies, save for the effects of newfound diseases such as Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia.

Much recent research on esocids has evaluated muskie stocking procedures, since many fisheries rely on them and fish are costly to produce. With limited budgets, high priority goes towards maximizing efficiency of operations so fish can survive and grow after stocking. Pike, on the other hand, rarely require replenishment, more often overpopulating lakes where anglers have removed too many big ones.

Another current avenue for research is measuring the efficiency of sampling techniques, to fine-tune the tools used to describe the size structure of populations. While this information is valuable to fishery managers, it’s not of high interest to anglers.

Length limits certainly affect fishing, particularly as they contribute to production of trophy fish. While some evaluations of muskie length limits have been done, particularly in Wisconsin, pike limits have been enacted mainly in the last decade, and only some preliminary evaluations have been conducted so far. Depending on level of reproduction, growth rate, and angler harvest in a body of water, three regulation types have shown promise: high minimum-length limits, protected slot limits, and medium-size, maximum-length limits. Biologists in Minnesota are currently studying their effectiveness in diverse fisheries.

Food habits studies are always fascinating, since the hunt for prey gives us the opportunity to catch fish in the first place. Tracking studies provide detailed descriptions of where fish go when, and in some cases, why they choose to move or remain sedentary, key information in formulating an angling plan.

Movement of Pike and Muskie

Even grizzled veterans admit that fish movements can be puzzling. We’ve sat with pro anglers, guides, and biologists, pondering the whys and wherefores of fish behavior or puzzling over lack of fishing success. The big toothy fish can be particularly frustrating, because they seem to move en masse for reasons that can be hard to decipher.

Biologists have tracked pike since the 1970s, revealing several key elements of preferred location and activity periods. In northern natural lakes and impoundments, vegetation keys pike location during summer, with preferred depth generally ranging from 6 to 15 feet. During ice cover, pike also prefer weedy water, though they may make forays into deeper open water, at times.

Where water temperatures may exceed the range preferred by larger pike, fish seek cool water, often by shifting deeper to hold along creek channels, flooded timber, or deep points. Pike generally tend not to establish longterm home ranges, however. Instead, they stay in restricted areas for periods ranging from a few days to several months, making short forays within this area of activity and sometimes outside it. After a time, however, they suddenly leave and establish a new activity area, often a considerable distance away.