MEET THE AUTHORS
Peter Moyle is the Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology and Associate Director of the Center for Watershed Sciences, at UC Davis. He is author or co-author of more than 240 publications, including the definitive Inland Fishes of California (2002). He is co-author of the 2017 book, Floodplains: Processes and Management for Ecosystem Services. His research interests include conservation of aquatic species, habitats, and ecosystems, including salmon; ecology of fishes of the San Francisco Estuary; ecology of California stream fishes; impact of introduced aquatic organisms; and use of floodplains by fish.
Robert Lusardi is the California Trout/UC Davis Wild and Coldwater Fish Researcher focused on establishing the basis for long-term science specific to California Trout’s wild and coldwater fish initiatives. His work bridges the widening gap between academic science and applied conservation policy, ensuring that rapidly developing science informs conservation projects throughout California. Dr. Lusardi resides at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences and works closely with Dr. Peter Moyle on numerous projects to help inform California Trout conservation policy. His recent research interests include Coho salmon on the Shasta River, the ecology of volcanic spring-fed rivers, inland trout conservation and management, and policy implications of trap and haul programs for anadromous fishes in California.
Patrick Samuel is the Conservation Program Coordinator for California Trout, a position he has held for almost two years, where he coordinates special research projects for California Trout, including the State of the Salmonids report. Prior to joining CalTrout, he worked with the Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum, a non-profit that supports the eight federal regional fishery management councils around the country. Patrick got his start in fisheries as an undergraduate intern with NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division in Sacramento, and in his first field job as a crew member of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Wild and Heritage Trout Program.
15 Comments
This exact same loss of steelhead happened on Santa Rosa Creek. I watched S.R. Creek steelhead decline and cease to exist. Taking away the water terminated the steelhead.
Climate change has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem.
it is much more than just one change. climate change is a contributor. we’ve seen that in norcal. when water is added, salmonids make a big comeback. also, habitat destruction is another. conditions in the ocean is another. overfishing is another.
I enjoyed the film and appreciate the extra exposure this brings to the plight of the Southern California steelhead. I saw for the first time a few So.Cal. steelhead about 30 years ago in Malibu Creek. At the time, it was generally felt that these fish were gone forever, but a few managed to survive and overcome the many obstacles placed over the years. It was amazing to see these huge fish in such a tiny creek. Knowing that they had been born in creeks like this and then moved to the ocean to mature made it all the more incredible that they retained the drive and ability to make it back to spawn. It is painful to see a fish overcome such odds to then be stopped by a dam or other manmade barrier. It has been learned with salmon and other fish that return to the sea that there are ways to coexist with these fish in a mutually beneficial way. Dams can be constructed with fish ladders or in some cases removed where they are no longer needed. Some of this has been done already, but still more action is needed.
For those of you who are not aware, the Aquarium of the Pacific is currently trying to create an exhibit to showcase the Southern California steelhead–if they can get it funded and put in place, I believe that it will be very beneficial (as this video is) in educating people and hopefully bringing further action to restore watersheds and habitat of these fish.
Genetically pure Redband Trout found in the Great Basin are genetically identical in many respects to Anadromous forms of Coastal Rainbow trout. Some of these particular fish have been found and actually persist in water temps that exceed 80 degrees which is lethal to many other native trout of the West. Both subspecies share common ancestory dealing with extremes even when man made and still manage to survive even with habitat degradation. Pacific Salmon do not contain the genetics that O. Mykiss possess.
Do you realize that this effort if destroying the chance for our youth to go out and catch stocked rainbow trout at our local lakes? The video mentions major reasons for the decline of said Steelhead. However Caltrout and the N.M.F.S. is going after the stocking of STRILE rainbow trout in our lakes. They are worried that IF the steelhead return and IF out local lakes overflow. That the STRILE rainbow trout might crossbread with said steelhead.
Instead of going after the major factors in the fight for the steelhead. Caltrout is chasing what if scenario’s and destroying other major fisheries in the mean time.
Perhaps your not thinking this through. If not , I feel sorry for your shortsightedness . Planted trout were put there to keep,you happy about the habitat loss in the first place. It makes going back to work on Monday seem somehow worth it . You have to look long term and perhaps just then, you’ll realize that if your great grandchildren can catch a steelhead on the fly , you losing your muddy flabby grain fed stocked rainbow was worth it .
Please read “An Entirely Synthetic Fish”… If that book doesn’t change your view of why there are hatchery trout, there is no hope
You keep saying that back in the early 20th century there were alot of steelhead. THAT’s BECAUSE MILLIONS OF THEM WERE STOCKED !!! The chumash don’t have any history of large steelhead runs, the spanish mission times had no history or record of large steelhead runs. so I quote DFW 2005 study “According to Titus et al. (2002), the Ventura River was estimated to have a run size of
4,000–5,000 adults during a normal water year. Th is estimate was made in 1946, although it is likely that the estimate is an expert opinion based on numerous years of observation. The system had received numerous plantings of juveniles in the preceding period (27,200 in 1943, 20,800 in 1944, and 45,440 in 1945, as well as 40,000 in 1930,34,000 in 1931, and 15,000 in 1938).
So do the study on lake casitas , resume trout planting there as you are killing that biological lake. SO you mean to tell me that in the 1 in 100 chance the lake overfills the dam somehow, and somehow connects to the ventura river, that the sterile trout (doesn’t sterile mean they cant reproduce) might breed with the 10 steelhead in the ventura river?? Bottom line is stock casitas, or i will stock it for you? did you get that? I will personally dump thousand of rainbow trout in the lake with my own money under the cover of darkness, as i already have the supply of them on standby.
Slade,
You are just plain wrong about stocking being why steelhead occur in Southern California. Case in point is the Santa Ynez River and below report that shows archeological and historic documentation of steelhead in the watershed far BEFORE there was even a hatchery facility in the western US and well documented stocking later.
http://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/vol111/iss3/1/
The issue of stocking trout in reservoirs, not “lakes” as you call them, goes far beyond the one point you raise of interbreeding with wild steelhead downstream (which I agree does not occur between sterile and non-sterile fish). Stocking hatchery fish also introduces diseases which are rampant in artificial propagation facilities and readily spread to wild trout and other aquatic species, stocking causes massive competition exposure for wild fish whose productivity (along with the stocked fish) is based on the amount of prey items (more stocked fish, less food for both wild and stocked fish to survive). If you do stock fish on your own, be prepared to face serious jail time and federal conviction under the Endangered Species Act… not worth it and counterproductive to what I think you and I would both like to see; better fishing opportunities now and in the future.
Thanks for considering.
Mike,
Wrong? SO WRONG , i have reviewed all of the dfw and ive read the report you link to a couple of times. Ive got my master’s in acccounting , im no dummy. LIke i said the historic record does not lie. you claim that ” below report that shows archeological and historic documentation of steelhead in the watershed far BEFORE there was even a hatchery facility in the western US”
so lets take a look at that report shall we? so I quote the report.
” Armstrong (2006) reported one definite and two possible anadromous fish bones from this site. These bones, however, constituted less than one percent of the fish bones
found at this site, with all other identifiable bones from marine species (5107 total
elements). 2 OUT OF 5107 BONES WERE ANADROMOUS FISH BONES!!! LOOKS LIKE THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SAYS YOUR WRONG MIKE!!. so that was at a site near cachuma . what about Santa Ynez. again quoting from the Report
“Hosale (2010) studied a site along the Santa Ynez River near the eastern edge
of the current Cachuma Reservoir. Taking samples from different vertical strata, KEY FACT: she
found four steelhead bone elements at sediment depths of between ten and one-hundred
centimeters, dating from as early as 4000 BC to Late Period times. Again, salmonid bone
elements constituted only a tiny fraction of the fish bone elements found at this site
(around one percent), with nearly all identifiable bones coming from marine species,
particularly clupeids such as sardines and anchovies”
FACT: 2 DIFFERENT ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDIES WITH A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE SAYS THERE WAS NO HISTORIC STEELHEAD POPULATIONS.
So what about the mission era? lets see what the historic record states , I quote again
from the report you linked to.
“We found no information which shed additional light on the steelhead or rainbow
trout in the Santa Ynez River or its tributaries in the records we examined from the
Mission and Rancho eras, which together lasted for about eighty years, from 1769 to
1849. …..We found no explicit records of Santa Ynez River steelhead or trout in the mission
archives or other collections from that period….
FACT: NO WRITTEN OR VERBAL HISTORIC RECORD OF LARGE STEELHEAD POPULATION.
so where is the evidence you speak of Mike?
the first hatchery happens in 1870. so lets go back to the report and DANIEL , HERE IS SOME INFO ABOUT THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY
“In November of 1914, the Los Angeles Times announced that
‘‘Enough trout and young salmon were planted in the streams of the State during the season which
will close this month to provide every man, woman and child with nearly sixteen fish
each’’ (Los Angeles Times 1914e). In just ten months, the state had planted 37,324,000
‘‘young trout and steelhead and quinnant [i.e., Chinook] salmon.’’ The state hatchery
program stocked every major coastal stream in southern California, including the Santa
Ynez River (Leitritz 1970; Dill and Cordone 1997; Boughton and Garza 2008). In 1915,
for example, the Commission planted 25,000 Chinook salmon in the Santa Ynez River
and 6,000 juvenile steelhead in both Salsipuedes and Miguelito creeks, as well as 90,000
juvenile steelhead in the mainstem of the Santa Ynez River (CFGC 1916; Los Angeles
Times 1915a; see also Oxnard Courier 1922).”
37 MILLION TROUT AND SALMON PLANTED IN 10 MONTHS IN 1914? so why don’t you get your facts straight.
If you have seen what I have seen in our MINOR streams still and to this day , you would have seen struggling populations of steelhead trying to get home.and you would understand . There are streams with native steelhead that are landlocked and have been for generations for lack of a clear shot back to the sea… You’re a numbers guy and want to squabble over how many steelhead there used to be . Why does that matter? You suggest that your data “proves” some sort of poor choice in making it worth a try to save the ones we have left. I don’t think anyone expects to go cast a #4 green butt skunk in the Santa Ana River anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth it; curbing their downward spiral is worth a shot. This doesn’t cost anything but a little more sensible urban development . They saved the California Condor from extinction . We fret over all the creatures now. Why can’t the steelhead have a shot? We can do this .
Certainly you’re not implying that the dearth of Chumash Indian , or Colonial Spanish Mission data collection implies there were no fish ? I don’t think game or fishery management ( one with no written language and languishing to European diseases , the other too busy applying their beef /corn/bean etc agriculture techniques whilst proselytizing a sick and dwindling workforce) , or any forward looking conservation methods were ever on the priority to-do list for any group with static or declining populations , much less any society that was surrounded by nature with no modern scientific understanding of what could or would occur 200 years hence .
With regard to lack of fish bone in the rock strata , perhaps you aren’t too keen on how WILD fish , once spent or dead on the stream banks , get scavenged , scattered and decomposed to return vital nutrients back to nurture and revitalize their own habitat . The fossil data collection your espousing as definitive proof would have been equally well spent searching for vintage eagle , owl, bear or coyote scat This is without even going into the idea that during heavy and light rain years, the rivers partially or completely change course.
Please read ” An entirely synthetic fish “, and if that does not alter your preference for hatchery trout in artificial reservoirs , let’s just agree that it’s amazing you even found your way to a CAL TROUT web link , and disagree on everything else.
One thing that needs to be realized here is that Steelhead were a seasonal food for the Native Americans, as most of their food was. The Native Americans did not have them year round as they did with ocean species. The Steelhead come up the streams to spawn and get out before the water level drops. Because of that there would be far greater evidence for marine fish than Steelhead in the archeological record. The Native Americans did make use of Steelhead. That is a fact! Your statements showing that we have been stocking fish in our streams has absolutely NO bearing on what is needed for the native populations of Steelhead at present. Being an accountant means you know accounting, not ecology. As to your threats to dump trout in Casitas, it shows you are right. You are no dummy, you’re an idiot!
Review the film. The 1940s is not the early 20th century in terms of pristine water flows . Your Cal Fish and wildlife service has very good data on the former WILD steelhead populations in Southern Cal
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/elsur_ranch/docs/exhbts/dfg_t_3.pdf
Eel Classy Bone White Los Altos
[…] ted with fish ladders or in some cases removed where they are no longer needed. […]