Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) are a large freshwater fish endemic to northeastern North America ([19]). They are challenging to catch, which along with their size, make them a popular sport fish for a specific segment of recreational anglers ([17]). They have been widely introduced beyond their native range, including in the USA state of South Dakota ([13]; [18]). Natural recruitment of muskellunge is limited, necessitating hatchery production and restocking to maintain many muskellunge fisheries ([7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [23]; [13]). Hatchery production was required to establish muskellunge fisheries in South Dakota and is essential to sustain muskellunge recreational fisheries in the state ([13]).

Relative to other sport fish produced in fish hatcheries, muskellunge can be more costly per fish to produce, but the recreational value and economic contribution are believed to justify the cost of production ([20]). Only two studies have been conducted evaluating the economics of muskellunge fisheries. In the USA state of New York in 1981, [16] estimated that the state’s 15,000 muskellunge anglers had an economic contribution of $1,400,000 ($7,795,200 in 2026 dollars adjusted for inflation). No analysis was conducted to separate naturally-maintained and hatchery-maintained fisheries. An analysis of muskellunge angler spending in Minnesota was conducted using a self-report diary system to track spending per fishing day from 1986 to 1989 ([25]). This study produced an inflation-adjusted, average-weighted-by-response-count, estimated economic contribution of $129 per muskellunge angler day.

No studies have determined the economic contribution of muskellunge angling directly attributable to stocking activities. In addition, little is known about the economic contribution of muskellunge angling and hatchery production in South Dakota. This economic information is needed to guide muskellunge management by fisheries managers and direct the allocation of hatchery resources by administrators and policymakers. Thus, the objective of this study was to estimate the total economic contribution of muskellunge rearing and stocking to the South Dakota economy.

The economic contribution of muskellunge rearing and stocking in South Dakota was found by aggregating the direct, indirect, and induced effects of both hatchery operational expenditures and recreational angler spending attributable to the muskellunge produced and stocked by state fish hatcheries owned and operated by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. This state government department is responsible for fisheries management of the public fishing waters in South Dakota. Two South Dakota state hatcheries, Cleghorn Springs in Rapid City, South Dakota and Blue Dog in Waubay, South Dakota, were involved in muskellunge production in 2025.

Direct effects are the initial rounds of spending that contribute to the economy. Indirect and induced effects, known together as the multiplier effect, occur as direct spending travels through the South Dakota economy. Indirect effects are the multiplicative impacts of subsequent rounds of purchases made by linked industries within the supply chain ([22]). Induced effects are the multiplicative impacts of household spending generated by the salaries supported within those related industries ([14]). To calculate the total economic contribution, direct operational and recreational expenditures attributable to muskellunge rearing and stocking were estimated. To account for the indirect and induced outputs, these values were multiplied by industry-specific and state-specific regional economic multipliers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Input-Output Modeling System II (RIMS-II).

The total economic contribution of muskellunge rearing and stocking to the South Dakota economy in 2025 was estimated to be $6,214,055 (95% CI = $2,562,290-to-$9,865,819; Table 2). The economic contribution per budgetary dollar spent was estimated to be $621 (95% CI = $256-to-$987).

Table 2.Aggregate effect for the hatchery production of muskellunge in South Dakota and the associated recreational fishery, with the economic contribution per hatchery budgetary dollar spent.

The results of this analysis demonstrate a disproportionately high and positive contribution of recreational muskellunge angling to the South Dakota economy relative to the minor costs of hatchery production. The over six-million-dollar economic contribution of muskellunge fishing to the South Dakota economy in 2025 is not surprising. People who fish for muskellunge, though small in number, are highly dedicated, specialized anglers who typically have the financial resources required to purchase the equipment needed for muskellunge fishing and undertake the travel to musky fisheries ([6]; [12]). The $621 of economic contribution per hatchery dollar spent clearly illustrates the relatively large expenditures by the small number of muskellunge anglers as well as the relatively small expenditures from hatchery rearing.

Because the muskellunge caught in 2025 originated from earlier stockings, the $621 contribution per hatchery dollar spent is best understood as the gross economic-contribution-to-current-expenditure ratio. Economic and biological data are not available from these earlier stockings to be able to describe the exact costs for those fish that survived and recruited into the fishery. While this current study is a snapshot in time, it attempts to show how much the hatchery muskellunge program costs in a specific year in relation to angler expenditures in the same year. Describing hatchery costs over a longer time frame going back to when the fish caught in 2025 were likely stocked, including biological data on how many of the fish stocked actually recruited into the fishery, and then compiling angler expenditure data for the entire time period is well beyond the scope of this study.

Because this is the first study to document the economic contribution of muskellunge fishing in South Dakota, no historical comparisons can be made. However, comparisons can be made to other recently published economic studies on recreational fishing and hatchery production in South Dakota. Specifically, a 2026 analysis of McNenny State Fish Hatchery using similar methods found a hatchery-specific figure of $133 in economic contribution per budgetary dollar spent on the rearing of trout and salmon in 2025 ([5]). A 2020 analysis of Cleghorn Springs State Fish Hatchery found a higher figure of $172 in economic contribution per budgetary dollar spent, again focusing on trout and salmon angling and production ([15]). While higher than that reported for trout and salmon, the economic contribution of muskellunge for hatchery dollar spent is lower than that reported for walleye (Sandervitreus) fishing in South Dakota. A 2026 study using near-identical methods to this investigation calculated that the walleye rearing in South Dakota contributed an estimated $1,066 per hatchery budgetary dollar spent ([4]).

In comparison to trout fishing, hatchery production of muskellunge appears to have a higher economic contribution per dollar spent, but because of the much larger number of trout and salmon stocked, it has a much lower total economic contribution. For example, the total economic contribution of muskellunge fishing in South Dakota calculated in this study was $6,214,055. This is dwarfed by the total economic contribution of trout and salmon fishing, which is estimated to be approximately $210,000,000 ([5]; [15]). The total economic contribution of trout and salmon fishing is further dwarfed by that of walleye fishing in South Dakota, which is estimated to be $714,694,161 ([4]).

To the best of our knowledge, no other studies have attempted to estimate the economic contribution of specifically of muskellunge stocking. However, a 1981 analysis estimated the regional economic contribution, not specific to stocking, from the activities of 15,000 muskellunge anglers in the USA state of New York at $1,400,000 including multiplier effects ([16]). Adjusted for inflation, $1,400,000 is approximately $7,795,200 in 2025 dollars ([3]), indicating that the economic contribution per muskellunge angler in New York was $520. There were 224,970 anglers in South Dakota in 2021 ([21]). Assuming 0.578% of these angler’s specific target muskellunge ([22]), then there are an estimated 1,300 muskellunge anglers in South Dakota. Dividing the muskellunge-angling-specific economic contribution of $6,197,405 by 1,300 gives an estimated contribution per South Dakota muskellunge angler of $4,767. On a per-angler basis, South Dakota muskellunge anglers contribute approximately nine times more than New York muskellunge anglers to the state-level economy.

Similar comparisons can be drawn from a 1992 Minnesota muskellunge angler self-report diary analysis ([25]). Using an inflation-adjusted average weighted by response count to the data from this Minnesota study produces an estimated muskellunge-related direct spending of $65.55 per fishing day. To account for the indirect and induced effects, this figure was multiplied by the Minnesota-specific RIMS-II multiplier ratio of 1.965 ([2]), yielding an economic contribution of $129 per muskellunge angler day. In South Dakota, there were a total of 3,155,550 fishing days taken in 2021 ([21]). Applying the muskellunge targeting rate of 0.578% gives an estimated 18,240 muskellunge-specific fishing days in the state. Dividing the economic contribution of $6,197,405 by the 18,240 fishing days produces an estimated contribution of $340 per muskellunge fishing day in South Dakota. On a per-fishing-day basis, South Dakota muskellunge anglers contribute approximately 2.64 times more than Minnesota muskellunge anglers to the state-level economy.

Because of the paucity of information on muskellunge angling in South Dakota, this analysis faced several limitations that may have affected the results. The primary limitation was the reliance on a small sample size of nine muskellunge anglers out of 1,899 anglers sampled ([22]). While the Agresti-Coull adjustment successfully mitigates much of the statistical uncertainty associated with this small sample size ([1]), the 95% confidence interval was still relatively wide. The range of 0.237% to 0.919% represents a fourfold difference in potential targeting rates between the two extremes. By extrapolating the target range to statewide spending, this wide disparity also applied to the direct muskellunge angling expense figures. Further, this simple extrapolation ignores differences in muskellunge angler spending habits. Muskellunge anglers must have specialized equipment and spend significant amounts of time fishing ([6]; [12]), implying that they are likely to contribute much more to recreational spending than a typical angler would for a given period spent fishing. Because of this, the center baseline figure for contribution per budgetary dollar may be significantly understated. It is possible that the actual economic contribution may be closer to the higher extreme of the confidence interval ($750 to $950 per budgetary dollar spent).

In conclusion, the rearing and stocking of muskellunge in South Dakota public fishing waters generates a highly positive economic contribution, serving as an efficient investment of state hatchery resources. Further, South Dakota muskellunge anglers contribute substantially more to the regional economy on both a per-angler and per-fishing-day basis than in other states. These results should be used by state employees making fisheries management decisions, as well as by hatchery managers and administrators tasked with allocating hatchery resources. Based on the return on hatchery resources in relation to the economic contribution, this study provides considerable justification for investments in hatchery infrastructure benefitting muskellunge production.

Grace Boysun assisted with manuscript formatting.

Conceptualization, M.E.B.; methodology, R.C.B.; validation, R.C.B. and M.E.B.; formal analysis, R.C.B.; investigation, R.C.B.; resources, M.E.B.; data curation, M.E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.B.; writing—review and editing, M.E.B.; supervision, M.E.B.; project administration, M.E.B. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.