Recent letters to The Malibu Times by Scott Winner, Bo Meyer, Frank D. Lawrie and Tom Moore about steelhead trout prompt this letter. Those supporting steelhead trout in Malibu streams should address the fact that, prior to World War II, California Fish and Game planted hundreds of thousands of steelhead trout in coastal streams of Southern California all the way to San Diego County. The fact that such massive fish plantings occurred raises the question: If these game fish were abundantly present in these streams as claimed by the “pro-steelhead trout at any cost” groups, why was it necessary to plant them at all?
One logical answer would be that the powerful fresh water fishing interests in Southern California wanted this spirited game fish closer to home to avoid a 200- to 400-mile trek to Northern California streams where steelhead were naturally abundant – thus the planting of fish in Southern California. Accordingly, it is likely that few, if any, steelhead trout existed at all in Southern California streams prior to Fish and Game plantings in California streams which started in 1871 and peaked in the decades before World War II.
The “special Southern California steelhead strain” appears to be a transplanted Northern California fish adapting to its new environment. Nature has acclimated to new environments since the beginning of time. It would be much more cost effective to again plant steelhead trout in those pristine streams of Southern California, rather than spend tens of millions of dollars on endless studies and projects to recreate a 1900 environment from a 2003 heavily populated, impacted area. The rub here, of course, is finding a pristine Southern California coastal stream. Solstice Creek is close to pristine, but may accommodate very few fish.
A question for lawyers: Does the Endangered Species Act apply to fish transplanted from hatcheries whether or not their progeny have disappeared (extinct)?
Ronald L. Rindge