TOPIC:

Now would be a good time to open this conversation.
Do you believe that our stocked Kings are returning to the ports they were stocked in?

Over the years Indiana has tried different stocking ideas. There was a time here when Indiana kings ran the streams in large numbers. Now with the fish getting tags they are tracked and can be defined with exact information on where the fish were stocked at.
In the early eighties our kings were stocked in the east branch of the port of Indiana. When they returned almost all fish ran to the east branch of the port. It was a 3 sided fish bowl. Those fish were part of an experiment. When they were stocked the DNR also used a chemical for the fish to home in on. The thought process was this: Indiana would put along the shore line drip stations that would drip the same chemical into the water. In theory the fish were to home in on this chemical and Indiana fishermen were suppose to be able to surf fish and catch the returning fish. This was done to reduce tresspassing and rotting fish smells along our rivers. Here is what actually happened.
The young kings were imprinted to the smell of the hot water dishcharge in the southeast corner of the east branch,not the experimental chemical. There were no kings that ran the ditch during this process. Almost all kings homed in to the east branch with very few fish finding their way to the west branch. This was the first for me as a young fisherman and charter captain to see how these fish strongly imprinted.
Today we still stock Kings, the numbers have been reduced as the forage has been reduced. We stock three ports, and Ben has information on returning fish to those ports. We are along way from the eighties, but the fish are still returning to their imprinted ports. Hardly any cross contamination of fish to other ports. That information speaks strongly that we do not have a imprint problem.
Over all the years of our stocking Kings, Mixsawbah has produced our kings. They stock yearly at approx. the same time every year. They do a very good job raising our fish. So what is happening that some years we see low numbers on a return? Seems like we like to blame something so where is the blame? I'm curious, what do you feel the problem is?

There were lots of kings in the creeks in the 80's and 90's for sure. I'm unable to find a database for annual stocking numbers for back then, but I assume the biggest part of the problem is sheer volume of
smolts being stocked. 
I'm also sure there are many other problems....predation being one. Back then, they had a "dirtier" lake to hide in, now, they're sitting ducks in the clear water. 
I'm also amazed every time I see trail creek any more, it has really "shrunk" over the years, their used to be 2x the water back then, but I doubt that has much to do with smolt survival. 
Is there any data yet from the net pen experiments being done at east chicago? Not sure when that program started, really would like to see or hear some data from this. 
Was there a better than average return there this fall? If so, it didn't seem to be mentioned much, but maybe not the right year yet to assess. 
I don't fish the streams any more, perhaps some stream fishermen and creel surveys will indicate how the returns are. They have that barrier now at springland, don't know if its capable of fish counts or not, if not, it should be, could get one benefit out of that monstrosity

Thanks Reelfun I agree with your thoughts.

In the eighties Indiana only used Michigan City and Portage for stocking. I don't have the numbers either. And the water as you mentioned was alot different then todays. Todays fishermen might not believe that you could lose your cannon ball just a few feet down.
Predation, again I like your thoughts. With todays clear water your correct those smolts stick out and make it easy to be predated on. Kings after stocking like to spread out on our shorelines. In shallow water.
Trail and the Little Cal are both not what they used to be in size and flow.
The net pen and stocking at East Chicago Marina are new stockings. The old stocking site is no longer available and was to the east not inside the EC marina.
With this all being new the information is still being tabulated. Fishing there this fall was pretty good and it was kept on the QT. The best fishing was close to the same spot where the fish are being stocked.
How many of us are paying attention to 3 years ago? What was the forage base like here then? When did it show up? Is bait showing up later then normal adding onto the predation of our stockings? Remember they are stocked yearly about the same time. Would you be surprised if some of us thought that the fall run in 2025 would be marginal based on bait and when it showed up in 2023?
In the past when times were good we had bait on the shore by mid April. We stock historically around April 21st. With a shrinking forage base our bait is showing up later and in thinner numbers. I hate to say it, and some may not believe it, but how does the spring Coho tell the difference between a 4 inch alewife, and a 4 inch King?????? We see the birds working bait and like to point the finger cause it is something we can see. What takes place under the water is something we can't see. Years when we have good bait and it comes on time covers the predation that happens yearly. Could it be that the numbers or the amount of forage is our best partner in making the Indiana fishery the best it can be?????

I'm very busy with a new employee, administrative stuff, and a lot of data request to lakewide partners, so I can't delve too much into this at the moment. 

But in terms of stocking numbers:  Trail Creek and Little Cal are pretty close to each other over the years in terms of chinook stockings. 

Going back over the last 40 years, in 10 year segments: (edit... table looked good before submitting, fixed hopefully)

 

The 10 year chunks do mask some ups and downs in the stocking cuts/increases over the years.

From 2020-2024 (relevant to today's returns) Trail Creek received an average of about 84,000 fish a year, and Little Cal about 89,000. Pretty comparable to most of the mid-90s and early-2000s. Size of the smolts has remained essentially the same. Survival/return of those fish has diminished significantly. 

I do have some stream creel numbers to compare, but since there is some inter-relationship between fishing effort, catch rate, and fish caught (more fish returning generally equals more fishing effort, which may drive down catch rate, with higher pressure and/or larger numbers of casual anglers) it is hard to make very confident analysis on just how many fish returned to the stream using only creel data. If you use the estimated total number of kings caught by stream anglers, the return rate per 100,000 stocked has declined substantially through the time series, with fits and spurts here and there. 

But over the years, angling effort has diminished much more than catch rate (sort of makes sense, fishing technology has increased over the past 25 years, and with declining chinook runs, probably casual anglers go less and more hardcore guys remain, which may artificially keep catch rate inflated if the worst anglers stopped fishing). If you look at catch rate, 2022 (by a hair) had the highest stream catch rate of kings in the entire 25 year time series I have. And normalized by number of fish stocked, the catch rate per 100,000 kings stocked is similar in the past 5 years to how it was in the 2000s. But I don't believe that there are similar number of returning fish. But rather less pressure by hardcore anglers has meant the catch rate has declined little compared to the actual number of kings returning. Just a theory.

Thanks for sharing the information Ben.

I am curious though,you opened with being busy with a new employee. Did you bring on a new asst.?