Home › News › County News
Photo offered as proof that river teemed with steelhead
Water district pitted against environmentalists over fish
Download this story as a podcast!
Nobody argues that this 1915 photo of fishermen proud of their haul of steelhead was taken in downtown Piru. But there is much debate as to where the fish were caught. Historian Ed Henke says they were caught in the Santa Clara River watershed.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsThe old black and white photo seems to tell a simple enough story.
In it, two men wearing overalls and wide hats that were the custom in the 1910s are standing in downtown Piru, proudly hoisting up a string of six thick steelhead they caught.
But in the complex, controversial world of trying to determine how to best manage the endangered fish, nothing is simple.
Environmentalists say the photo is one of the many pieces of evidence that show the steelhead were once plentiful in the Santa Clara River and that the United Water Conservation District needs to work to get the fish back to those high numbers.
The folks at United say those fish could have been caught anywhere, and the photo does little to prove that steelhead ever inhabited the river in high numbers. The district recently hired a historian to pore through old newspaper articles, fishing reports and stocking records to see exactly how big the steelhead population was — or wasn't — on the river. The result is a nearly 800-page report on the history of fish on the river.
Million-dollar questions
This is a high-stakes argument over history, one that could force United to spent tens of millions of dollars to fix its fish ladder and diversion, or permit it to continue as it has for years. California Trout recently filed notice of intent to sue United for not doing enough to protect the steelhead and restore the population to historic levels.
"Going back in time is a difficult thing to do, and any historical estimates are not very precise, and that is similar with any wildlife populations," said Chris Yates, who oversees steelhead issues for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and believes enough data exist to prove there was a sizable, viable population on the river before the impact of man.
Yates said the National Marine Fisheries Service uses population estimates from nearby watersheds and historical habitat modeling to put the population of steelhead in the Santa Clara River from 7,000 to 9,000 before any man-made structures were on the river. The NMFS maintains that the river is a vital component of the restoration of the fish in Southern California, where they estimate populations once numbered from 32,00 to 42,000.
United isn't so sure.
"I don't know that we can say how large the population used to be," said Jim Kentosh, resource and planning manager with the district. "Certainly the indications are that the numbers are not as high as some folks think."
The historian is poring over old stocking records, and United's General Manager Michael Solomon said he thinks history will show that the majority of fish in the river are stocked rainbow trout from fisheries or stocked steelhead that were brought in from the north, not native steelhead. Rainbow trout are basically the same as steelhead; the main difference is steelhead swim from freshwater to the ocean and back again.
Solomon contends that the reason that only two steelhead have been seen in one season going through the fish ladder that goes around the Freeman Diversion on the Santa Clara River is that they just aren't here. And if they were never really here in high numbers, why should the district pay millions to fix a ladder that might not be broken and wouldn't lure fish that aren't there or never were, he asked.
'Not an open checkbook'
Solomon said the old black and white photo doesn't prove that fish were in the Santa Clara watershed. He argues that while some natural steelhead might have been in the river, the majority might have been either stocked rainbow trout or steelhead that were brought in from Northern California.
"They are trying to get us to reach a goal based upon what we can see is not there," Solomon said. "We are not an open checkbook to something that is not there."
But others dispute United's claim that the populations were not robust on the river in years before dams and water diversions were built around Southern California.
NMFS said it's unlikely that stocked rainbow lived very long and steelhead that were found in the Santa Clara River and its tributaries were there long after the stocking programs.
"There is not an argument that we have seen that the Santa Clara River wasn't an important part of the Southern California steelhead habitat," Yates said. "The science we have is solid."
Nica Knite with California Trout said she thinks United is trying to dismiss high population numbers in the district's own interests.
"If United can make a case against the preservation of steelhead, they can make a case against having to do something for the benefit of steelhead," she said, citing genetic evidence of historical natural populations. "There's not even a debate."
Ed Henke spent his childhood years playing around the Santa Clara River, and in recent years, the retired National Football League player has spent many hours researching the history of steelhead on the river. He found the old photo, which he thinks is a part of a larger body of evidence that the steelhead were once thick on the river. He, too, thinks United is trying to disprove that to its own advantage.
"They are trying to present a case in their favor because they are trying to not do what the feds and the state told them," said Henke, who now lives in Oregon. "You can't argue with history. History is a fact, and those fish were in there."
Hamper the recovery
During the course of his research, he said, he found old newspaper articles showing 10-pound steelhead in Santa Paula Creek and reports of catches elsewhere, proof that they were abundant, he said.
Friends of the Santa Clara River chairman Ron Bottorff fears that United's argument of the population size could hamper the eventual recovery of the species.
"It's an argument they can use to obfuscate the issue," he said. "Good science, not politics, should govern the recovery of the steelhead."
To read United's historian's report, visit http://www.unitedwater.org/index.cfm?go2=steelhead. The district will hold a public meeting on Thursday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, 800 Hobson Way.
Posted by nacilep on November 16, 2008 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I grew up in the 60's in the Santa Monica Mountains. Even there, every winter there would be a run of steelhead coming up from the ocean. Obviously there used to be large numbers running up the Santa Clara River.
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nacilep - you are a typical liberal. If your such an environmentalist - why do you support the Camarillo prison? It will dangerously impact the local environment - we don't have the water to supply or the waste treatment capacity for the prison. It will be built on a fault, blah, blah, blah. As for the steelhead question. Steelhead are nothing more than rainbow trout that head to the ocean - please read up. The difference between a steelhead and a rainbow is a "life history". Nothing more, they are genetically identical. ALL rainbow trout have the gene to POTENTIALLY go to the ocean. I DO support efforts to help them return upstream. But fake science - like using an old picture doesn't help the arguement. Please don't try to argue with me on this one. I live it everyday - water source engineering is my job!
Posted by handyhood on November 16, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Graesan- I don't care what your occupation is, you can't argue with history. There was a steelhead population in the Santa Clara river. It has died out do to mans intervention (probably some water source engineer)! I remember back in the sixties when an occasional steelhead would be caught. We will never again see natural steelhead, matter of fact, most trout in the tributaries of the SC river are planted. Humans have killed the river by sucking it dry. My Father says he can remember when it was big enough to put a small boat in it. Please don't argue with me on this one, he was there!!!
Posted by Nosmo_King on November 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If it wasn't for Pyramid and Piru lakes there wouldn't be water in the Santa Clara as we speak.
Posted by Brownpride on November 16, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its big enough to put houses in handyhood. They can fish for the steelhead from the balcony when we get another big rain.
Posted by Will on November 16, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical liberal diatribe: "Lets pretend the 20 million people in SoCal are not really here"
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
handyhood - the steelhead have NOT died out. I routinely go to Freeman Diversion - they ARE there. They are less able to get BACK from the ocean. An occasional steelhead still makes its way to the ocean. The rivers here were STOCKED for sport. History, as you define it is, is NOT scientific. Every day, in my profession, I have to deal with this - with HARD scientific evidence. Not silly pictures.
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do any liberals here know the genetic difference between a rainbow and a steelhead? There isn't one. Changes occur in the phsycial appearance of the RAINBOW trout as they travel to the ocean. Rainbow trout ALL have the potential to become steelhead. Read your science books please. Also, the current drought conditions are a MAJOR reason the steelhead are having difficulty returning from the ocean.
Posted by star on November 16, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can any water source engineer tell us why rainbow trout behave one way, and steelhead another, despite being genetically identical?
In my book, somebody who wants to conserve our rivers could also be called a CONSERVATIVE.
Posted by Meam0585 on November 16, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
really honestly why does it matter if a person is liberal?? I mean last time I checked we WERE in california.. Graesan what makes you so special?? Just because you are a water source engineer?? You dont do anything with fish. it is just civil engineering concerned with the development of sources of supply, transmission, distribution, and treatment of water. You just care how the water is so we all dont die from it, how its going to get to the locations and where it is going to come from. Hey here is a idea instead of worrying about steelhead fish why dont you help California with out water supplies??
Posted by xrl650 on November 16, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see, the two guys in the 1915 photo caught these fish in Northern Calif. then jumped in their SUV and drove to Piru to have their picture taken.
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Meam0585 - Water source engineering has EVERYTHING to do with fish. I don't do anything with fish? Our main source of water used to be the delta - now the SMELT (fish) have resulted in that source going away. You make me laugh. It's like saying what do doctors have to do with medicine. Where do you think we get our water? I have to "deal" with the fish issue everyday. By the way - if you live in So. CA. YOU are part of the problem. I spend everyday trying to get YOU water. Please make my job easier and leave!
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
STAR - I would love to conserve our rivers. YES, steelhead and rainbow trout are genetically identical. Please do your homework. ALL rainbow trout have the gene (potential) to become steelhead. They transform as they travel downstream. If I had the answer as to why some rainbow trout make the journey and others don't - we wouldn't be discussing this issue. Are you suggesting that steelhead and rainbow are not the same species? If so, you are ignorant.
Posted by Graesan on November 16, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Google it.
Posted by nojustice_justus on November 16, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Graesan--have your coffee and meds before you log on...so what if you 'live it' everyday? What warrants the vein bulging from the side of your neck post from nacilep? Is that the way you conduct yourself as an engineer?
Breathe through your nose.
Slowly. That's better....Calm....Calm...Calm
Posted by justmeinsp on November 16, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
if the steelhead aren't coming back upstream because there's not much water in the riverbed, why's everyone getting so upset about "saving" them? what's next? "endangered water" that can't be allowed to be trapped by damns anymore? hey, don't laugh til you check this out: http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-re...
Posted by handyhood on November 16, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Graesan- Walk away from the keyboard and take a drive down to the Santa Clara river at the Wells Rd. bridge. Do you see ANY water? No? That's because a bunch of water source engineers are pulling it out and sending it into large holding areas so that it can seep into the Aqua filter. How does ANY fish live without water? Come on Mr. Engineer, I am waiting for an answer. Oh, and I may be wrong, but a rainbow trout changes once it reaches the ocean due to the sea water. Then it transforms to be able to survive in salinated water, thus becoming known as a steelhead. It does not change on its way downriver. It changes slowly at the tidal areas of where fresh and salt water mix.
Posted by anom1985 on November 16, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
boy graesan really hates fish. steels are a helluva lot bigger too. bet they ate his dog or something.
Posted by NowHearThis on November 17, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who cares if fish once tried to move up the SC river? There no water in the river now. Big deal. Wasteful column inches.
Posted by bugmenot on November 17, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Any local knows they are there in small numbers. Even Graesan acknowledges such. Most locals that have been around a while have hard stories of them being in much higher numbers and some have seen a population decrease first hand.
So when United says something like this, it really doesn't help get the public to sympathize with them:
>>The folks at United say those fish could have been caught anywhere, and the photo does little to prove that steelhead ever inhabited the river in high numbers.
They would do their cause much more justice to acknowledge the steelhead population decrease and work on an amicable solution which would not hinder their business but also help increase the population of the fish. The people understand that with the human population increase as it is now that it'll be difficult to get to the fish population back to previous levels. Just be honest.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 20 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.