TOPIC:

Tmik34 wrote:

Thanks for the breakdown Ben,

Number of Cohos returning should be the same as they have been correct? No major decrease in stocking has happened to them?

That's a complicated question and a bit of a novel to follow here: 

Coho survival has generally been down in Indiana over the past 6-8 years - it's very tied to alewife yearclass, just like chinooks -  and there's been quite a few changes both in stocking targets and issues with production, such as obtaining the egg targets from out of state partners, and with early mortality syndrome from thiamin deficiency.

If you recall a few years ago, we rolled out a program to increase coho returns by reducing skamania in order to grow yearling cohos. Well, that was very unpopular so we've now undone that. 

That change wasn't fully unwound until this production cycle, so there were about 30,000 yearling coho stocked in 2020 and 2021, in addition to fall fingerling cohos. Functionally, coho stocking was up during those years since we stocked yearlings, which have a much higher survival, even though the absolute number of coho stocked didn't change a lot.  If those 2021 stocking fish did well, there should be a decent coho return this fall. But we have not seen it rebound as much as I would have hoped. 

There will be a drop in coho stocking relative to the past few years going forward since there was almost unanimous opposition to reducing skamania in exchange for cohos. 

I have also noticed (and curious if others have) that in the past few years, the coho that are returning to the streams seem to be disproportionately the 9-12 inch jacks rather than the older yearclass fish, which normally are 4-10 pounds. Not sure what the issue(s) are there, but something we've been pondering

Has Indiana ever had success with Coho that had strong fall runs? Besides what we saw on the St.Joe a few years back?

Lickety-Split wrote:

Has Indiana ever had success with Coho that had strong fall runs? Besides what we saw on the St.Joe a few years back?

Coho fall runs have historically trended very similarly to chinooks. They are, just like chinooks, extremely tied to alewife population and yearclass strength

Couple graphs from creel data - total estimated fall stream catch of coho and chinook, and catch rate per 100K stocked. You can see that both track very very closely. 

I have been noticing small alewife in the Trout the last several weeks. The offshore fishery has been very poor for most part of the summer even though the water temps and amount of bait fish have been very good.

I agree, offshore has been horrendous, then add in the fuel prices this year.

I must be the person who kept the Skamania vs. coho survey from being unanimous. I'm sure the shore and stream guys prefer steelhead.  I don't understand boat fishermen here in Indiana going that way unless they think all those cohos they catch are the product of Indiana's hatcheries. Far from it. Most of them are from Michigan, Wisconsin or Illinois stocked fish. Our great fishery is dependent on those states. Michigan has a proven record of cutting cohos first when their budget gets tight. Illinois is always on the verge of bankruptcy. Wisconsin has the most king oriented DNR on the lake.  I'd never suggest sacrificing Indiana cohos for steelhead.   

Maybe if the legis-critters would have upped the salmon stamp fee as they adjusted the hunting and fishing license fees earlier this year, Indiana would be able to afford both species.  

hey mike....do people really eat steelhead??......arent they bottom feeders like carp or do they just taste so bad because they are not salmon?.....just joking but i'm heading out for 12 days of camping and fishing for real eaters....gills and crappie....chain o lakes state park in albion....hope there are some steelhead left when i return....if nothing else they are fun to catch

and so it begins again.

Lickety-Split wrote:

and so it begins again.


If asked which I prefer I would have to raise my hand for steelhead.  I'm all for more Coho but not a fan of substituting Coho for Steelhead.  Our return on Steelhead has been consistent over the years. Coho, almost nonexistent.  I have high hopes that stocking the Coho at a larger size will result in better returns, but until then, I'm happy with the Coho Michigan sends us in the spring considering what I have to pay for their out of state license.

 

FOM4 - Steve:  You were kidding about steelhead not being flavorful, weren't you?  I've found them to be as good as salmon in any of the dishes I've ever made with them. Of course, I've eaten a gaspergoo or two as well.  They are not the equivalent of salmon (or carp on the other extreme. Have fun at the Chain.  

Lickety:  Returns to the streams may not mimic steelhead - though numbers wise, it's an apples and mushrooms thing.  The DNR keeps the stream stockings for Steelhead maxed out at 2X or 3X numbers over coho. 

I do think the years there were extra cohos stocked in the St. Joe by Michigan resulted in a much improved offshore summer fishery at the South End and a better spring season in Indiana waters. This probably doesn't reflect in Indiana creels since most of those summer fish were north of the line and went on IL or Michigan reports. 

And relying on Michigan for "their" cohos is a slim promise to base our spring fishery.