Trounce or Triumph? Trout Technology of Transylvania County

John Morgan, Western Carolina University

As the population and resource use of America has risen, the scope and scale of human modification of the environment has equally increased. Some pernicious ramifications are only announcing themselves now, such as global climate change, after patterns of resource use have been unalterably established. Other symptoms of the spread of human influence catch the eye of the casual observer more readily. In the words of Henry David Thoreau: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, such as when you find a trout in the milk.”2 The fact that one found a trout from the stream in a bucket of milk suggests strongly that the man selling the milk has been skimming it with water. When loggers of the old-growth forests of the Southern Appalachians dipped their hands into slurries of mud and debris that had once been streams, it was abundantly clear that fish did not and could not live there. The stream that held more sediment than water probably would not have any trout.

The fisheries and aquatic resources of America have been impacted by urbanization, pollution, resource extraction, water and landscape modification, and other environmental alterations over the past 150 years.3 The pre-civilization abundance of native trout has been greatly reduced due to large scale anthropogenic disturbances and landscape modification. Resource extraction in every form degrades the landscape. Historical leaders in society and politics have had a certain level of awareness regarding the relationship between declining environmental health and the industry of humans. George Perkins Marsh, considered one of the earliest conservationists in America, posited that “the loss of wildlife, in other words, was an inevitable result of civilization and progress.”4 What Marsh could not have anticipated was that as progress came, even though humans knew the consequences, they wanted to have it both ways. The rise of the conservation and preservation movements resulted from the people who had benefitted from reckless resource extraction desiring what had been despoiled. Americans craved progress, continued to push for it, yet sought what had been sacrificed along the way.

This behavior is seen in trout; an article from the Transylvania County, North Carolina newspaper Sylvan Valley News printed the musings of a fisherman on June 19, 1908: “‘If you will take the time to investigate,’ said an old time angler who has observed as he fished, ‘you will find that the full stomached trout in your catch will outnumber the empty stomached ones ten to one. This would seem to indicate that it is the trout which has already dined well that is eager for more.’”5 In this regard, humans are like trout. Humans have already dined, satiated themselves on the naturally occurring abundance of trout. And yet the humans hunger.

People did not crave trout because of a deep rumbling in the abdomen. They sought the sport of angling, or fishing for pleasure. An activity that satisfies a different urge—to relax, and experience nature. Originally an occupation of the wealthy and elite, fishing for sport has occurred as a cultural phenomenon throughout history. Fishing clubs for the American elite began to appear in the early 20th century. These clubs would purchase large tracts of premier stream and restrict them to the public. Heavy fishing in some of these exclusive streams and a desire for greater catches led to the stocking of these entirely private rivers.6 The federal government began stocking public waters also and making fishing areas more accessible to the public. The degraded habitats wrought throughout the developed continent in the late 19th century prompted the formation of the Fisheries Commission in 1871. Because the “sacrificed” environmental conditions could not be restored, so that industrial progress could continue, the Fisheries Commission was established to maintain the fisheries of America through fish propagation and stocking. All the way to the top it was believed that the “systematic plantings of suitable species of fish” would “compensate for any possible interference with the fish,” as President Herbert Hoover frankly stated a few years later.7 Fish were raised and stocked to meet a cultural desire to experience nature through angling and overcoming an aquatic adversary, despite the natural limitations of widespread degradation of aquatic environments.

The natural freshwater trout fisheries of Western North Carolina were vastly depleted at the turn of the century, and this region is a poster child of the technological, ideological, and sociological developments that culminated in large scale fish propagation and stocking. The process of timber extraction dealt the greatest blow to the landscapes of the Southern Appalachians, and North Carolina was not exempt from the ravages of timber companies.

Logging of almost every old-growth mountainside of Western North Carolina wreaked utter havoc upon trout streams. The removal of ancient trees initiated a plethora of environmental degradations. The lack of canopy cover allowed precipitation to reach the ground un-intercepted, where rain drop impact dislodged sediment and then sheet flow carried vast quantities of material into streams. The destruction of tree stumps in land clearing removed the structure locking soils in place, causing massive erosion. Sediment clogged streams and, in the worst cases, smothered fish.8 Even after the suspended sediment had settled or been flushed through the stream, it replaced cobble streambeds with thick layers of silt, clogging the ideal locations between river rocks for trout eggs and damaging a habitat for important macroinvertebrates.9 The construction of roads for logging caused a massive influx of sediment in many stream systems, since roads were unpaved and cut from the side of the hills. The removal of ancient tree canopies greatly reduced the amount of shade streams received, raising water temperature. This, combined with global climate change, has raised temperatures enough to reduce the dissolved oxygen in stream water, making many larger, low elevation streams unsuitable for sensitive trout species like brook trout.10 Other landscape modifications, such as road construction and the establishment of large areas of impermeable surfaces like roofs and parking lots, have significantly altered the balance of flow paths for rainwater between the surface and subsurface. Modifications of streams themselves are even more detrimental. Stream improvements such as straightening can cause raucous incision and sedimentation, and building dams in streams, if they are too high, can prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to fish. The distinct depletion of trout from the region of Western North Carolina due to habitat degradation is not necessarily a problem—they are not a critical food source, and the saying goes “there are plenty of other fish in the sea.”

The story of trout stocking in Western North Carolina begins with demand and is also populated with plenty of the “other fish.” Trout fishing had always been an activity of interest to the locals of Brevard, North Carolina. Fishing was unrestricted at the turn of the 20th century.

Even though it was situated in rural Transylvania County, the extremely wealthy fishing clubs of America were emulated even here. Private groups, like the Brevard Gun Club, carried out fishing expeditions and began stocking the destinations. In 1904, they stocked Cathey’s Creek with roughly 200 non-native rainbow trout and sought to reap what they had sown with a fishing trip to the same stretch of river in 1905. The survivability of the rainbows was poor- they only caught native “speckled” trout.11 Three types of trout inhabit the streams of North Carolina. The native brook trout, also called the speckled trout, mountain trout and “brookies”. Brook trout are technically members of the char genus and not trout, but they share many characteristics. There are two non-native species of trout in North Carolina: the brown trout, Salmo Trutta, which originally hails from Europe and Asia, and the rainbow trout, Salmo Gairdneri, which came from the West coast of America, from Mexico north to the Bering Sea in Alaska.12 Brown and rainbow trout were introduced to occupy degraded stream habitat that no longer suited brook trout. Both species, to a certain extent, are less sensitive to sedimentation, warmer water temperatures, less oxygen, and contaminants.13

Private stocking efforts provided the main supply of fish in the area in the early 1900s. In 1907 a local man from Brevard had been stocking Cathey’s Creek with brook trout shipped from a hatchery in New York.14 These small scale, private efforts went mostly unchecked, but helped popularize trout fishing and create public demand for government support. The beginnings of the conservation movement and popular demand for more public lands for hunting and fishing prompted the establishment of the Pisgah National Forest in 1915. Almost the entire 500,000- acre preserve was purchased from the wealthy Vanderbilt family, and a large portion of the Pisgah district fell within Transylvania County. The forest lands had previously been part of Gifford Pinchot’s forestry school and experimental forest.15 With the establishment of the park there were even greater opportunities for the public to partake in the joys of trout fishing.

However, the management and conservation goals for the land prompted extensive regulations on fishing. Rainbow trout caught within the preserve had to be at least 8 inches long, and brook trout had to be 6.5 inches long. A lone dollar bought a fishing permit for the day, with a creel limit of 15 rainbow trout and 15 brook trout. Anglers could not fish between 8 PM and 5 AM and were limited to using artificial lures, such as imitation flies on a fly-fishing rod.16 Despite these strict regulations, trout stocks could not keep up with the demand of anglers. In June of 1919, trout became scarce in Mills River in Pisgah. The stream was closed to fishing when a survey revealed that all the fish were only eight inches long or smaller—the stream was closed to spare the fish the potentially death-causing trauma of being hooked and released. According to the Brevard News: “The present scarcity of large trout in Mills River is attributed to the fact that for some years before the Pisgah forest passed from the Vanderbilt estate into the hands of the government the streams had not been stocked with fish.”17 At the same time as the current stocking and management regimes were falling short of supplying desired fishing, a mythology of trout fishing in Western North Carolina began to emerge. No article epitomizes this better than one from August 5, 1921 that describes a Pisgah stream: “… and Grogan Creek, a perfect poem of ripples and rainbows through a wealth of foliage and flowers…” Additionally, newspaper articles began to emphasize the “sport” of angling: “You’ve got to know something of the game. If your trout sees the fisherman before he does the fly, the creel is apt to have little to do.”18

The demand for fish in Pisgah and other parts of the state became great enough to justify the construction of fish hatcheries and fish culturing stations in 1924. Three trout hatcheries were built elsewhere in the state: one in Haywood County near Balsam, one in Watauga County near Boone, and one in Alleghany County near Roaring Gap.19 Western North Carolina was perceived as an angler’s paradise—the objective of towns like Brevard was to evangelize for the outdoor opportunities and “reel in” fishing enthusiasts from across the country. The first “motion scenic picture” of Brevard was recorded on August 12, 1926 and was a momentous occasion for the businesses and individuals of Brevard.20 The film was produced to promote tourism to Brevard, highlighting the beauty and opportunity of the mountains. The fishing scene recorded is described as “particularly interesting and of special value to Brevard as publicity material.” The film was circulated throughout North and South Carolina and was shipped down to Florida during the winter and sought to “display the most interesting features of Brevard and Transylvania Counties.”21 The extremely prominent fishing scene shows the priorities of the community—attracting outside anglers. By 1928, the demand for a fish hatchery in the area had reached even higher; House Representative Zebulon Weaver introduced a bill to provide $75,000 to build a fish hatchery and “fish cultural station” in the Pisgah National Forest. Weaver describes Western North Carolina as “…the great playground of the east. There is no part of it that is more beautiful than Transylvania County. This county has hundreds of miles of trout streams which would be most attractive for visitors and valuable to our own people if kept properly stocked.”22 Every year trout fishing in the area was becoming more and more popular. In April 1930, hundreds of locals and visitors to Brevard fished in the Pisgah National Forest on the opening day of fishing season. “Practically all streams of the county have been stocked and re-stocked, and this section is rapidly becoming known as having the best fishing of any section in Western North Carolina.”23 The efforts of Zebulon Weaver and other involved citizens prompted a federal response. In 1932, representatives from the Forestry Service came to scope out the potential for building a hatchery in Pisgah. Zebulon Weaver continued to be vocal on the matter, stating that: “Establishment of the hatchery would mean much to this section… This county, having its many miles of clear mountain streams, would soon become a regular fishermen’s paradise.”24 The citizens of Transylvania County didn’t have to wait long. Just the next month, it was announced on the front page of the newspaper that a “Fish hatchery may be established in National Forest.”25 The wealthy members of the Brevard community were heavily involved in the process of establishing the hatchery. The gears of government were slow to turn, so the Kiwanis club sent representatives to meet with House members in concert with Weaver and make sure the hatchery funds were conveyed and construction occurred.26 The facility at Grogan’s Creek was completed in 1937, and despite the previous push for a hatchery, only a fish rearing facility was built—simply a place to grow trout. Fry had to be routinely shipped from an actual hatchery, usually the national hatchery in Wytheville, Virginia. The waters at the head of the Davidson River were deemed not suitable for a full-fledged hatchery, so the nearby CCC camp of John’s Rock merely constructed eighteen circular and rectangular rearing pools, which were supplied with 2,000 gallons of water per minute from Grogan’s Creek. Mr. Reuben O. Knuth was chosen to operate the facility, a trained fish culturist. The primary objective of the whole construction was “the demonstration of scientific stream management as a means of improving angling conditions.”27 The first fist to splash into the ponds were 17,000 brown trout fingerlings, conveyed from West Virginia by truck. Up until this point, there is no record of brown trout in the streams of Pisgah. 

Two months later in June, more trout from the fish hatchery in Wytheville, Virginia were brought to the rearing station via rail car. In that delivery, 40,000 rainbow and 21,000 brook trout arrived—bringing the total to 80,000 fish in the eighteen pools. In the same newspaper, right below this trout shipping writing, was an article titled “Roosevelt confident of Bill’s Passage”, about court reorganization bill that President Roosevelt was confident would pass and knew the American people wanted.30 This setting of an agenda of government involvement in intensive public resource management, in concert with the wills of both the wealthy and common folk of Brevard, shaped the policy of trout management in the area.31 In 1938, 18,000 brook trout, 25,000 rainbow, and 20,000 brook trout grew to maturity under the guiding hand of Reuben Knuth. In 1939, 70,000 trout were brought to the Pisgah Forest rearing pools from the federal hatchery in Wytheville, Virginia.32 By this time, large-scale extensive stocking was in full swing. In 1940, 15,000 trout were stocked in the streams of Transylvania County from the Grogan’s Creek fish rearing station, compared to the 46,650 trout released over the same area in 2018.

By 1950, the fish rearing station had a new caretaker, Harry B Shaffer. The changing of the guard included the reorganization of the Bureau of Fisheries into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The trout fry were shipped from a hatchery in Walhalla, South Carolina rather than the Virginia location because Walhalla was geographically closer and the connecting roads were far more developed. In 1950, 35,000-40,000 fish were stocked in the streams in Pisgah- more than double what was stocked just ten years before.33 Finally, fulfilling vision of Zebulon Weaver, a fish hatchery was constructed during the late 1950s and opened in November 1960. The full- fledged fish hatchery, built right below John’s Rock, boasted extensive raceways, a larger diversion from Grogan’s Creek, and its own large-scale egg producing and rearing facilities.34 The hatchery would be run by the federal government for another twenty years until 1983, when it would become a state fish hatchery run by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.35 The hatchery was revamped in the mid-1990s to increase its rearing capacity to 250,000 pounds of trout annually, with 16 indoor rearing ponds and 54 raceways. The diversion of Grogan’s creek filtered 3,500 gallons of water a minute through the long concrete raceways.

Renamed as the Bobby N. Setzer State Fish Hatchery, it is now the largest coldwater hatchery in North Carolina. A couple of rudimentary ponds dug into the ground and stocked with hand-fed trout is a nostalgic and romanticized version of fish husbandry, a relic of the past. Today, trout farming shares many similarities with the massive maize monocultures of the Midwest or with the hog farms and slaughterhouses of North Carolina. Instead of keeping the trout feces, carcasses, and other wastes that washes out of the trout raceways in cesspools like the hog lagoons of eastern North Carolina, fish hatcheries dump their effluent into nearby waterways. Trout do not produce as much waste as hogs but are still a major point source of pollution which leaves its mark. The prize-winning trout of D.S. Orr, pictured at the start of this paper, was caught in the Davidson River, right at the effluent pipe from the hatchery; the trout was so large and living at the pipe because the effluence was a constant source of food. The growth and propagation of trout has reached a high level of efficiency. Many hatcheries, including the Bobby Setzer hatchery in Pisgah, allow visitors to view writhing masses of trout. Varying sizes of trout fill long concrete troughs excavated into the earth. To protect the precious stock from aerial attack, large metal nets surround the runs at most hatcheries, preventing birds from reaching the fish. In this featureless box, fish do not develop a fear of predators, don’t learn to recognize insects or macroinvertebrates as food- instead preferring pellets, and become accustomed to living in chokingly high densities of other fish.36 Even though these trout are destined to be stocked in a stream and pursued by anglers, all of these negative attributes make them easier to catch and in the opinion of some fishermen “not good sport.”37 Freshly stocked trout will approach human outlines above the water, expecting food. They will swim high in the water column, where they are vulnerable to predation, and they will bite anything that hits the surface, whether it looks like the bug they want to eat or not. Breed stock are kept separate in indoor facilities, where even more modifications to the normal lifestyle of a fish are imposed. The interior of hatching facilities features endless shelves of egg racks, which allow the eggs to sit in flowing water until hatching. To try to prevent breeding with wild fish, hatchery raised fish are now triploid females. After the eggs fertilize, they are sealed in a pressure chamber which keeps them from losing one of their sets of chromosomes. The resulting fish have a triple set of chromosomes and no reproductive organs.38 Trout from fish hatcheries today are no more than a “factory product intended for economic consumption”—quite a far cry from the ideal of trout fishing pursued in the 1920s and 1930s in the area.39

Another conflict arising from trout stocking that echoes dark refrains of American history are concerns over the genes of southern brook trout. The mixing of native brook trout with strains from further north have created huge conflicts regarding the “genetic purity” of southern Appalachian brook trout. They are hard to define, and that makes the idealistic goal of restoring the native wild brook trout to its former extent extremely difficult if not impossible.40 Results from genetic testing of brook trout populations in North Carolina indicate 38% of brook trout populations are of Southern Appalachian origin, 10% are of northern origin, and 52% are of mixed genetic origin.41 The invasive rainbow and brown trout have outcompeted native brook trout in many degraded habitats, which concerns anglers and the government. In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a rehabilitation of brook trout range is being pursued. Rainbow trout were extensively stocked in the park in the 1930s and 40s. It was believed that despite this competition, brook trout would return to stream reaches they had inhabited in the past, but this was not the case. In the 1970s it was determined that rainbow trout had taken over old brook trout streams, and that brook trout were confined to high elevation streams above waterfalls, which acted as natural barriers to encroaching rainbow trout. These high streams had a lower pH which was less ideal for fish, and the contracted range to the uppermost parts of streams made the brook trout extremely vulnerable. Areas perfect for brook trout inhabited by rainbow trout in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park are being managed with extremely aggressive methodologies. A common practice in freshwater fisheries management is the use of electrofishing- using a strong electrical current to knock fish in a body of water unconscious. As they float to the surface, they are easily counted and surveyed, and usually slip back into the depths unharmed when they revive. This method has been used in the National Park not only to survey the spatial distribution of trout species but also to remove stunned rainbow trout from undesired stream reaches. Electrofishing campaigns were carried out in the late 1970s and 80s, and the results of those efforts have been monitored through 2000. Due to the complexity of these steep graded streams, a large population of rainbow trout survived where electrofishing campaigns were conducted. In response, the park service adopted more drastic techniques. After preliminary studies in 2000, the park service carried out two chemical extermination campaigns against rainbow trout in Sam’s Creek using the piscicide fintrol. The active ingredient within, Antimycin, disrupts cellular respiration, preventing ATP—or energy production—in the fish, which causes it to grow lethargic, lose all color and turn white when moribund, then die. Park employees released extremely lethal doses along a 3,600-meter section of Sam’s Creek in 2001. The treatment was extremely successful, and after neutralizing the piscicide brook trout from a nearby stream were transplanted in the now unoccupied reaches.42

The story of trout stocking is not exclusively a tale of environmental degradation and the cunning of humans. Trout farming, though far removed from any natural process, has been made more efficient and less impactful, and has become more effective at maintaining trout in streams. The underlying causes of habitat degradation have been mitigated as resource extraction has declined in the United States and as social and political changes have altered environmental views. The improvement of conservation standards during the environmental movement, like the Clean Air and Water Acts and the establishment of the superfund program, among other actions of individuals and the government, have dramatically improved the conditions of the environment on American soil. Ultimately, there is a reason the government and private hatcheries go to such lengths to produce quality fish. Despite the estrangement from natural propagation and growth, stocked trout are still prized by anglers and enjoyed by the vast majority of those who pick up a fishing rod in Western North Carolina.

1 Echo (Pisgah Forest, NC), Nov 1, 1953, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2014236906/1953-11-01/ed-
2 Henry David Thoreau, Journal of Henry David Thoreau: volume 2. 11 November 1850, The Walden Woods Project. https://www.walden.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Journal-2-Chapter-1.pdf
3 Jesse T. Trushenski and others, “Why Keep Hatcheries? Weighing the Economic Cost and Value of Fish Production for Public Use and Public Trust Purposes,” Fisheries 43, no. 6 (2018).
4 Anders Halverson, An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 7.
5 Sylvan Valley News (Brevard, NC), June 19, 1908, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068053/1908- 06-19/ed-1/seq-1/
6 Douglas M. Thompson, The Quest for the Golden Trout: Environmental Loss and America’s Iconic Fish
(Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2013), 60.
7 Christopher J. Manganiello, “Fish Tales and the Conservation State,” Southern Cultures 20, no. 3 (2014): 53.
8 Lindsay Laird and Ted Needham, Salmon and Trout Farming (New York: Halstead Press, 1988), 77.
9 Thompson, 28.
10 Laird and Needham, 70.
11 Sylvan Valley News (Brevard, NC), April 28, 1905, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068053/1905-04-28/ed-1/seq-1/
12 Laird and Needham, 21-22.
13 Laird and Needham, 70-79.
14 Sylvan Valley News (Brevard, NC), May 31, 1907, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068053/1907-05-31/ed-1/seq-1/
15 “Pisgah National Park,” in Encyclopedia of North Carolina, ed. William S. Powell (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006). https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/pisgah-national-forest/
16 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), March 30, 1917, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1917- 03-30/ed-1/seq-1/
17 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), June 13, 1919, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1919-06- 13/ed-1/seq-1/
18 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), August 5, 1921, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1921-08- 05/ed-1/seq-1/
19 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), December 4, 1924, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1924- 12-04/ed-1/seq-1/
20 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), August 12, 1926, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1926- 08-12/ed-1/seq-1/
21 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), August 12, 1926.
22 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), March 1, 1928, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1928-03- 01/ed-1/seq-1/
23 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), April 16, 1930, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1930-04- 16/ed-1/seq-1/
24 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), January 28, 1932, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1932- 01-28/ed-1/seq-1/
25 Brevard News (Brevard, NC), February 4, 1932, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074063/1932- 02-04/ed-1/seq-1/
26 Transylvania Times (Brevard, NC), February 7, 1935, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068098/1935-02-07/ed-1/seq-1/ 27 Transylvania Times (Brevard, NC), April 22, 1937, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068098/1937-04-22/ed-1/seq-1/
28 B.W. Muir, “View of office and circular pools, etc.,” 1937, photograph, National Archives Catalogue, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7027658
29 B.W. Muir, “Reuben Smith of the Fish Rearing Station feeding the fish (Pisgah Dist.),” 1937, photograph, National Archives Catalogue, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7027660
30 Transylvania Times (Brevard, NC), June 10, 1937, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068098/1937-06-10/ed-1/seq-1/
31 Transylvania Times (Brevard, NC), June 10, 1937.32 Transylvania Times (Brevard, NC), April 20, 1939, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn91068098/1939-04-20/ed-1/seq-1/
33 Echo (Pisgah Forest, NC), March 1, 1950, http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2014236906/1950-03- 01/ed-1/seq-1/
34 Rod Amundson, “Pisgah Forest National Fish Hatchery Dedicated,” Wildlife in North Carolina 24, no. 11 (1960): 19, http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p16062coll4/id/5180/rec/15
35 “Coldwater Hatcheries,” North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, https://www.ncwildlife.org/Fishing/Hatcheries-Stocking/NCWRC-Hatcheries/Coldwater-Hatcheries
36 Thompson, 97.
37 Thompson, 109.
38 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, North Carolina Trout Resources Management Plan (Raleigh, NC, 2013), 4. https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Fishing/documents/TroutManagementPlan.pdf
39 Thompson, 88.
40 John P. Hayes and others, “The Genetic Diversity of Native, Stocked, and Hybrid Populations of Brook Trout in the Southern Appalachians,” Conservation Biology 10, no. 5 (1996): 4.
41 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 4.