LA Times Article- Arroyo Seco Trout

[McFlyfi]

I'd link the story, but it' s behind a probably behind a paywall. You might be able to access it as a guest/free article. Front page including pictures.
The gist is that Pasadena may have to slow down on it's planned increased use of Arroyo Seco water due to trout being translocated from the West Fork to the Arroyo Seco.

I've fished the Arroyo many times, they stocked it up until the late 80's early 90's. There was a Ranger station at the bottom of the access road that connected to Angeles Crest. Right across was the a big pool where they stocked it. There would be planters stacked up there after the truck left. We could always coax a few shrimpers from the skinny pool at the base of the dam.

Bernard- the picture on the front page lists a Darrell Kunitomi- wasn't he from the old Flyfisher Magazine forum?

[huntingtheriverking]

Interestingly, this is right on the heels of the announcement that the Arroyo Seco "trout scout" had caught a few rainbows back there. I don't know if they were aware at the time that the West Fork San Gabriel fish had been transported to the same creek.

Video of the announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfo3uhaw1yw

[Bernard]

...Bernard- the picture on the front page lists a Darrell Kunitomi- wasn't he from the old Flyfisher Magazine forum?

Same guy. A man who loves small streams and cares about the locals. He's active on Facebook should you care to reconnect with him.
Bernard

[DarkShadow]

I was out there eating dirt on my newly acquired mountain bike, on the "San Gabrielino Trail" upstream of JPL.

It's hard to imagine this 'creek' holding any fish. Is this the same Arroyo Seco we're talkin about?

[1mocast]

Yes sir!

[DarkShadow]

Yes sir!

I'm just curious what the end game is.

It's almost like they're sending fish to the slaughter in the hopes a few survive, so they can say they live there, so they can push other items in their agenda.

It's almost like the fish are being used as a human shield.

I used to hear the stories of people going up there and catching fish, but after seeing the conditions of the creek, it seems there are A LOT of things that these groups need to fix in order to make this project more than just a pipe dream.

It's kinda like the push to re-establish steelhead in the LA river.

Are they planning on dynamiting the concrete and making the river natural again? Or are they doing it so they can say they did it? It's almost as if 1 fish comes back, they can sleep well at night.

Shouldn't their efforts be focused on saving stuff that have a better percentage of being saved?

I just don't get this fascination of bringing these steelead back to the LA River. For what? So they can become food for the locals?

[NorcalBob]

One thing to keep in mind is, that funds for restoration are part of a utilities/user groups "fee" for exploiting public trust resources. In most instances, a certain percentage of revenues for exploiting public trust resources, is part of the agreement to utilize those resources and can only be used for restoration. If they don't get spent on restoration, those "fees" revert back to the utilities/user group for their own benefit. There is usually great competition for these "fees" amongst restoration groups, so many more projects are considered than can be funded. And yes, politics does play a role in who gets the restoration money. So the real question is, would you rather those "fees" revert back to the utilities/user group or be used for restoration, no matter the chance of a restoration actually succeeding. Especially, in the case of LA steelhead (which are listed under the ESA, which drives the political motivation), I'd personally prefer the money go to LA steelhead restoration, than the utilities/user group's pocket. YMMV.

[DarkShadow]

One thing to keep in mind is, that funds for restoration are part of a utilities/user groups "fee" for exploiting public trust resources. In most instances, a certain percentage of revenues for exploiting public trust resources, is part of the agreement to utilize those resources and can only be used for restoration. If they don't get spent on restoration, those "fees" revert back to the utilities/user group for their own benefit. There is usually great competition for these "fees" amongst restoration groups, so many more projects are considered than can be funded. And yes, politics does play a role in who gets the restoration money. So the real question is, would you rather those "fees" revert back to the utilities/user group or be used for restoration, no matter the chance of a restoration actually succeeding. Especially, in the case of LA steelhead (which are listed under the ESA, which drives the political motivation), I'd personally prefer the money go to LA steelhead restoration, than the utilities/user group's pocket. YMMV.

I used to work Asset Management at Nestle a few decades ago. I remember before the end of the budget year, departments would spend tens of thousands of dollars buying items that were not work related, that their staff would end up taking home. I remember one time the Candy Department ordered 125 digital cameras, and gave them away to their staff for their Holiday 'giveway.' When I asked the department head why Asset Management gets hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of random orders (TVs, cameras, new laptops every year, etc) they said that if that budget money does not get used, their yearly budget would get slashed in the up coming year, so every department made sure they wasted their money so they could ask for more in the upcoming fiscal year.

And therein lies the problem.

Certain departments throwing their money into empty pits because they have to, while neighboring departments on different floors actually needing more budget money to allocate for better reasons.

And on a side note, what I find interesting that in all the articles I'm reading, our esteemed 'DFW' is not mentioned once. I assume they were involved heavily in the relocation of the fish from the WF to the AS?

[NorcalBob]

I don't disagree with your premise that maybe this isn't the best way to spend this money, but the route to restoration funding is very long, difficult, and very competitive, and myself, I'd much rather the money do something positive for the environment than be returned to some utilities/user group bottom line pockets. Besides, these restoration projects usually benefit other creatures that are not necessarily related to LA steelhead. And by the time you get through the long, difficult, and very competitive process, the funds are usually somewhat close to expiring and getting returned. Sooooooo...........
In the interest in full disclosure, my son is the Chief Fisheries Ecologist for the Trinity River Restoration Program, so obviously I'm in favor of restoration efforts!

[McFlyfi]

If you want to read the article, @1mocast posted the text over in the "Other California Waters" section.

[NorcalBob]

Back in my day 50 years ago (you know when dinosaurs roamed the earth!) Arroyo Seco used to hold a decent population of small wild rainbow trout, and also was stocked on a regular basis with truck trout. Haven't been back there since then so I have no idea what it looks like now. That was one of the streams (including the WFSG) that I learned to fly fish on.

[DarkShadow]

Back in my day 50 years ago (you know when dinosaurs roamed the earth!) Arroyo Seco used to hold a decent population of small wild rainbow trout, and also was stocked on a regular basis with truck trout. Haven't been back there since then so I have no idea what it looks like now. That was one of the streams (including the WFSG) that I learned to fly fish on.

I knew someone who used to go above JPL and catch these pretty natives, but that last fire that decimated the area also took most of those trout with it. He said that there obviously would still be some remnants, but that the stream would need years to recover.

I made a hike to Switzer Falls last year and I still can't understand how this place held/holds catchable wild trout. The water was so skinny that I'm sure it goes dry in some sections. These fish must have some summering deep pools somewhere along the way. Now that I know I can break my neck on the trail on my MTB, I might go up there one of these days and see how far up I can go. Now I'm curious.

[1mocast]

So true. It was one of my favorite front range hikes before the fire. I haven't been back since it would break my heart at the loss of habitat. Yes there are deep plunge pools where my hope is some of them are hanging on. That's my hope at least.

[McFlyfi]

...Now that I know I can break my neck on the trail on my MTB, I might go up there one of these days and see how far up I can go. Now I'm curious...

2 car shuttle - one car at JPL, take the bikes to Red Box, ride down to JPL...

[DarkShadow]

...Now that I know I can break my neck on the trail on my MTB, I might go up there one of these days and see how far up I can go. Now I'm curious...

2 car shuttle - one car at JPL, take the bikes to Red Box, ride down to JPL...

Yeah....see....the problem is, I just learned how to ride a bike.



So, I prefer going up hill, and gauging the return back down, and avoiding any potential hazards like, pretty much anything.

I was really disappointed that they shut down the West Fork Trail as that was like, my training grounds.

I finally have another MTB after a custody battle for my previous one (don't ask) so I was thinking I can use that Gabrielino route since it doesn't seem to be TOO bad for the first 5 miles.