Fishing in remote parts of the Santa Barbara backcountry may one day be a thing of the past, as environmentalists are working to ban all forms of angling — including catch and release — on the Sepse and Sisquoc creeks in order to help save the endangered steelhead trout. The fish’s existence may also be threatened by the five-fish bag limit on the north fork of Matilija Creek, say environmentalists, so they are also seeking to make that stretch strictly catch and release.
The emergency closure request, which was issued by the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, was heard on Wednesday morning, November 16, by the California Fish and Game Commission, which is meeting at the Veteran’s Memorial Hall on Cabrillo Boulevard this week. Following the guidance of Department of Fish and Game staff — which supports closing the Sisquoc, but wants to study the Sespe more and does not see the need for changes to the Matilija — the commission decided against any immediate action, instead planning to wrap any changes into the statewide regulation update that happens every three years. The next round of that process starts in June 2012, so the discussion, which pits the closure advocates against many fishermen, will continue next summer.
If Wednesday’s meeting was any indication, it’s likely to be a lively debate, as are most conservation-minded attempts to limit recreational opportunities on public lands. Although both the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and various fishing representatives spoke positively of the cooperation and conversations that have already occurred on the matter, the two camps will likely remain divided on banning fishing on the Sespe and Sisquoc — where only catch and release is currently allowed — and there may also be some less-vehement disagreement over Matilija as well. The argument presented by Brian Trautwein of the EDC is that the closure is merely an attempt to amend a 14-year-old “oversight” that’s allowed state fishing laws to conflict with the federal Endangered Species Act.
The oversight isn’t hard to understand, as the law protecting the steelhead is a little convoluted: Steelhead and the more commonly known rainbow trout — which live in the inland creeks and lakes — are genetically the same species, but if a rainbow makes it to sea, then it becomes a steelhead. So when the federal Endangered Species Act was applied to the steelhead in 1997, it also protected all rainbow trout that may one day have a chance to reach the ocean, which is to say all trout living in waterways that do not have any barriers to the sea, such as dams. So the state Department of Fish and Game shut down the obvious Southern California waterways, such as the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam and Cachuma Lake, but some of the less-obvious streams — like the Sisquoc, which flows freely into the Santa Maria River and out to sea — were overlooked. That’s what the EDC is trying to correct.
“It’s a clear-cut example of state law not being consistent with federal law,” said Trautwein this week. He explained that there are lots of hurdles for steelhead recovery, but that eliminating fishing on known steelhead corridors is an easy step to take. “Their population has plummeted by 99 percent or more, and they’re just barely holding on the brink of extinction,” said Trautwein, who believes even catch and release can kill fish. “This is one pressure that we can eliminate.” Department of Fish and Game staff agree with that on the Sisquoc, but say that the north fork of Matilija Creek does feature barriers to fish migration and that the Sespe may as well. So they will be studying the Sespe in the coming months to determine whether or not it should be closed, too.
But fishermen say that the closures wouldn’t be fair and that they are actually some of the best lookouts for poachers and others who misuse these creeks. “Keep fishermen out there because they will be your friends on the stream,” argued Tom Rafican of the Sportfishing Conservancy at Wednesday’s hearing. His other comments echoed those made by fly fishermen who warned that the closures would likely last decades and that the commission shouldn’t take them lightly.
The other interesting twist to the steelhead protection strategy is that fishermen who support the tearing down of dams will suddenly find themselves with fewer places to fish, for such removals would turn legal rainbow trout fishing holes into potential steelhead zones and therefore off-limits. “As barriers to migration come down, the barriers to fishermen go up,” said Earl Arnold of Sespe Fly Fishers, a more than 40-year-old organization of about 90 families that would be rather deflated by a Sespe closure.
Trautwein is aware of that built-in dilemma. “There are different ways to allow fishing even with endangered species,” said Trautwein. “We are working with fishing groups to keep waters open to fishing even before the steelhead is recovered and delisted. There are tools to address it so there doesn’t have to be conflict.”
[CLARIFICATION: After this story was published, Trautwein explained that his latter comments were not specifically about the EDC, but about the nonprofit organization CalTrout’s efforts to coordinate with fishing groups and its attempt to negotiate possible options for continued fishing access in certain areas as populations recover.]



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Hm, it seems like some cooperation is needed rather than knee jerk reactions.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2011 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stakeholders are vital to conservation. On the other hand, the upper Santa Ynez River is still available.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 3:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a fisherman, sportsman, and hunter. I am a self taught lifelong biologist, and geology student, 40 years of reading and being in the outdoors and paying for all the gear and books. Fishing licenses alone generate about 100 million dollars a year in revenue directly to the state. Who remember when the environmentalists and fish and game did their experiment with all the big breeder steelhead trout in the late 90’s or 2000? They over filled the tanks with fish when trying to move the steel head to the Boy Scout camp. Now they want to stop legal fishing is the back country. Unfortunately the state of California has given their Fish and Game biologist’s legislative rank and the County Supervisor’s legislative powers to control gender hunting of deer. That’s right. That’s another story. I am confused as to why our state forces hunters to pay to kill feral pigs? Do they want the pig population to increase?
Back to back country fishing, what is the motivation for sportsman to buy the gear for fishing, and monitoring, the backcountry when we can’t pass down traditional values? Like leave the area cleaner than you found it and have the camp site ready for the next visitor. Taking younger people to the Sespe, the Dick Smith Wilderness, Reyes Peak lookout that burned down, Lockwood Valley and all the canyons and passes from 154 hwy to the 33 hwy beyond the 126 hwy and that’s just central CA. Who is going to call 1 888 333-2258 when there has been poaching? I have seen condor, golden eagle, peregrine falcons and western blue birds. Lots of other very rare thing left behind. So please don’t take another 100 million dollar shot to hurt our economy, or the economy of nature.
jw (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure why the EDC is targeting conservation minded "Catch & Release" Fly Fishermen & Women? They are the least of Southern California's Steelhead worries.
Ironically another Environmental group sued the Ca. Fish & Game a few years back regarding the stocking practices. This is why the Upper Santa Ynez River is not stocked with hatchery rainbow trout. The problem is, you can still fish it and "Take" 5 fish a day.. My guess would be that the wild or native hold over fish would be taken now. (those coming up from Lake Cachuma)..
Here is an idea; instead of having the EDC spend time & $$ fighting the "Catch & Release" crowd, why don't they pay for a Game Warden's Salary for 1 year. I bet that would have more of a positive impact on So. Cal Steelhead, as poachers are still going to poach regardless of closure!!
fishfriendly (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you mean the so-called endangered Southern California Steelhead? Are all scientists in agreement that the genetic studies really confirm there is a difference? Why not start with seasonal limitations like rivers to the north of us have? If steelhead actually come up a river from the sea, it is usually during higher water flows which typically occur between Dec. and March to spawn. It's not like many people can even get back to the remote Sisquoc or Sespe just to fish during those winter months, it's practically impossible so there is no "fishing pressure". And how do you know it wouldn't be fish from the north that came up our rivers? Also, many other rivers just around the bend allow catch and release during the off seasons between April and November, hence it protects the spawners during the winter.
But to begin with, I hope the genetic studies are solid. A wise old F & Game biologist once told me that these fish know no boundaries, that they call them "Fish of a 1000 miles" for a good reason. Also "ghost fish", here today, gone tomorrow.
I hear folks did some genetic studies, but were they detailed enough with large sample sizes from both northern and southern rivers? In addition it is now common knowledge that our rivers like the Santa Maria (which the Sisquoc feeds into) and the Santa Ynez—even the Ventura River—were widely planted with hatchery raised steelhead and trout from Washington state hatcheries back during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, to enhance the local fisheries for sport fishing. So the question must be asked: what really was the historical population of these rivers and was it artificially enhanced? For those genetic studies were hatchery raised stock from Washington also included? Doesn't it seem kinda odd to think that there is a magic line drawn across the state and that fish from north of Pt. Arguello don't mix with fish from the south or come up our rivers? Genetics is complicated no doubt. There are so many other pressing issues these days, I can't see my tax dollars supporting this. And for the record, I know where there are some fat fat resident rainbows that are in the 18" + range way behind natural migration barriers (so obviously planted) and I plan to catch and release them no matter what.
maybeso (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is this going to be enforced. I've been very far into the back country and there is no one there to stop anyone from fishing.
buckwheat (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)