Adding Insult to Injury

Agree. Not a chance that's a stocked brookie. Fins are razor clean. Head size is small because it's a spring creek with good growth rates. Not a Poconos freestoner.
I'll concede to that. It's not the first time I've been wrong, probably not the last.
 
I'll concede to that. It's not the first time I've been wrong, probably not the last.
I'm certain I've been wrong before as well. Things can get weird in SE PA with brookies, in the handful of streams that still have them that aren't your typical steep and rocky infertile streams.
 
I'm certain I've been wrong before as well. Things can get weird in SE PA with brookies, in the handful of streams that still have them that aren't your typical steep and rocky infertile streams.
Yes, I imagine the brookies in those types of streams just have a different look to them. I am accustomed to the mountain freestone native appearance. I'm never done learning.
 
Thats exactly my point too, that there is an unrealistic obsession with size. I pointed out that valuing only fish size was the end point of the faulty study that only sampled average length of 300m that you have mentioned when we talk about catch and release. The end point was a brook trout in millimeters. I was pointing out we should be looking at resiliency of the fish and adaptive potential instead of size which is what those studying conservation genetics of brook trout will tell you. Its ablut their ability to deal with stressors not how hard they pull on a rod or what “fishery” they provide if we are talking about conservation.

FWS got fin clips from the hammer and walnut possibly too I believe. So once that is released publicly we will get some information about the population. Yes brook trour can be genetically different on small spatial scales as you mention however “genetically” different is a spectrum. Just ao you and everyone on here understands how adaptations works, its driven by genetic diversity. The main ways genetic diversity is maintained is new genes coming into a population. There are two main sources of this. Random mutations one. Most random mutations are useless but its like rolling the dice a small number could be beneficial but its a slow process. The other is gene flow, fish movement. Its why despite cross fork having multiple freestone tribs we still care that fish can move in from kettle creek. I think one thing that would help your under standing on this is that you talk about “lack of genetic diversity likely not being a problem”. However, gene flow is also a spectrum. Thats what I think your missing is that simply avoiding inbreeding depression of a native brook trout population is on one end of the spectrum. Its REALLY low hanging fruit. Its like someone trying to lose weight setting a goal of getting 1000 steps a day on their fit bit. Its bare bones. On the other end of the spectrum is what SHOULD be our managers goal if we are serious about healthy resilient brook trout populations is high adaptive potential. There is even such thing as rapid adaptation being looked at in native alweives right now. The more gene flow you have from the winners of natural selection coming in from other pop, the more genetic diversity, the more adaptive potential. So back to the barrier on Hammer Creek, thats preventing gene flow and its been there for a long time. So while maybe there is or isn’t inbreeding depression reducing the hammer’s brook trout’s fitness, I don’t know. Either way making that the goal sets the bar really low and when we get some fin clip data maybe we will see that a genetic rescue could be very advantageous and help increase genetic diversity and adaptive potential above that barrier to deal with any and all stressors. Thats the beauty of making adaptive potential the managment goal instead of size and density like we currently do now. Woth a conservation genetics/adaptive potential approach the fish are adapting to stressors we may not even know about on their own. If we are just going to make all our study outcomes170mm brook trout like in PA fish and boats catch and release study or fish management value system class A or bust than we are bot going to have healthy brook trout populations because we are managing for fishing goals not conservation ones that the expert presenters at the chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics STAC conference sharing their research are indicating should be the priority.
I don’t see a conflict between managing for more larger ST in a population and having greater genetic diversity. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, particularly since I explained the specific options that could be used to produce larger ST and that all of those techniques would work within the existing ST populations (improve big fish habitat, increase forage, reduce rare cases of overharvest, etc). Hammer is a productive stream and where habitat would allow I would expect larger ST, like the one in the photo, could be produced.

It is not clear to me that you understand why significantly increasing the number of legal size ST in a population was an objective of the C&R ST reg package that failed. Likewise when others suggest that these populations were already good; therefore, the wrong populations were selected the reason for the study is again being misunderstood. The study was in response claims that there was a statewide ST overharvest problem, and in my experience, the most frequent specific complaint has been the statewide 5 fish creel limit. Statewide is just that…statewide! If it’s truly a statewide problem as was claimed, then conducting a study on statewide waters, especially public waters with both multiple control waters and multiple treatment waters, should reveal the problem and answer the question. One should not have to cherry pick suspected impacted waters.

The results did not surprise the staff. They corresponded with the low to no angler use on the vast majority of wild trout streams that all of us had seen over decades of fieldwork and corresponded with the low angler use and harvest that had been recorded in the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study.

In the past you have mentioned or cited research that suggested inbreeding produces smaller ST. The argument might be more convincing if in the field ST adult size and adult habitat in Pa were commonly mismatched. In my experience, however, I don’t recall seeing that except perhaps in one very degraded, very infertile, mine acid or acid precip stream at a higher elevation in Schuylkill Co. In that case the entire population was low density as well for the available physical habitat so other factors were most likely at play.

While this inbreeding problem could in theory eventually occur, I think it’s a topic that possibly deserves more field research. I don’t think there is necessarily going to be much sympathy for moving fish around for genetic purposes after all of the efforts to finally develop a permitting system without stream specific genetic information to justify it, both from donor streams and recipients. I certainly don’t see it as an immediate critical problem in comparison to cooling streams down (buffers, as troutbert mentioned) in anticipation of climate change temperature impacts. After all, it takes years for planted trees to provide shade along a stream. When I say years, I’m referring to 10-15 that I have seen in more recent projects. The beauty of buffer development is that the streams benefit whether it’s the climate change “deniers” or the “believers” who are right.
 
Last edited:
I'm certain I've been wrong before as well. Things can get weird in SE PA with brookies, in the handful of streams that still have them that aren't your typical steep and rocky infertile streams.
You’re correct. You’ll note that I didn’t say anything about wild or stocked given the source. Limestoners and mine acid streams can violate some of the assumptions developed on freestoners about coloration and body plumpness at times.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see a conflict between managing for more larger ST in a population and having greater genetic diversity. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, particularly since I explained the specific options that could be used to produce larger ST and that all of those techniques would work within the existing ST populations (improve big fish habitat, increase forage, reduce rare cases of overharvest, etc).

It is not clear to me that you understand why significantly increasing the number of legal size ST in a population was an objective of the C&R ST reg package that failed. Likewise when it is said that these populations were already good; therefore, the wrong populations were selected the reason for the study is again being misunderstood. There were sportsmen who claimed that there was a statewide ST overharvest problem, and most frequently cited was the statewide 5 fish creel limit. As you know, statewide is just that…statewide! If it’s truly a statewide problem as was claimed, then conducting a study on statewide waters, especially public waters, should answer the question. One should not have to cherry pick suspected impacted waters.
I don’t see a conflict either if you are just managing for increased adaptability/ genetic diversity and using the watershed level management that WV and MD are using at the recommendation of the EBTJV. You will get brook trout living up to 7 years in some of those systems, their going to be bigger.

But what I am talking about is we devalue populations based on size of fish or density all based on a fishery aka what we want out of it. They are devalued the second they don’t meet class A and are open for stocking even if they have inert geology are acidic infertile and their max carrying capacity/size may have never supported what people would say constitutes a “good fishery”. So you essentially devalue an entire stream type state wide and you wind up with people stocking the crap out of the allegheny national forest to levels the streams probably never supported. While there is nothing really you can do to really manipulate individual fish size currently as you said(besides the side effect of managing at watershed level like in the savage and letting them feed in dispersal corridors), scientists are saying that we should just not be measuring the value of individual streams or watersheds on fish size. Aka not having our brook trout management handcuffed to fishing metrics and instead using conservation goals like making sure the fish can adapt to stressors.

I know Pa fish and boat does not currently have ANY management areas for brook trout or regs for brook trout, AT ALL, prioritizing size or any other variables. But despite that, the overall devaluing of native brook trout from lay people and fisheries managers like PFBC is there size. This fishing rooted size obsession( often only an extra 4-8” with brown trout) is why the little J and spring creek are managed by fish commission essentially how EBTJV is saying we should manage for native brook trout. At watershed level, C and R, and non to minimally stocked in that watershed. Only difference is in Pa we do it for an invasive wild brown trout in our best waters while MD and WV are doing that for brook trout instead of an invasive species as recommended by the EBTJV. Thats how backwards it is here. Hand cuffed to Fish size, fishing, density as related to angler experience while we do the exact opposite of what scientists/conservationists recommend just because one group of stakeholders and politics.
 
I am continually amazed at how much attention hammer creek threads get given the poor trout habitat and even worse fishing experience it yields most of the time.

That doesn’t mean that there is not a significant population of wild trout in the stream and that stream doesn’t need all the help we can give.

I can’t even say I’ve ever seen anyone fishing upper hammer aside from the parking lot area on pumping station rd. ( easy access to the dam pool)
I think there are a few reasons. There are a lot of local people active on the board and they enjoy sharing their experiences. Hammer is a unique stream. While it's not Penns Creek, it is a large Limestone stream that is influenced by a number of freestone streams. In the past it has been home to large brook trout. Numerous people have caught large (up to 12 inches) brook trout including myself. In certain stretches it used to be possible to have 30 fish days.It does have numerous hatches including sulfurs, Caddis, and BWOs in the fall. I have watched the County park water come alive with wild fish and caught brookies in water pounded by bait fisherman after the Sportsman's club stocking. In Lancaster County that is pretty impressive.

It has a unique history (Mill Dams, Whiskey Distillery, etc) and a dam on it. Its lower stretches were always viewed as one of the top trout (stocked) streams in Lancaster County. Its dam is a popular fishery and recreational area creating the classical issue of the value of dams. Its dismantling brought an outcry from many people. Hammer was also at the center of controversy over a proposed sewage treatment project. The Lancaster Conservancy has set aside valuable lands which have highlighted the changing views of land, ecosystems, and provided recreation for many.

I don't have to detail again all the many man-made indignities Hammer has faced. I myself watched a bass from the newly rebuilt dam chase a 3 inch brookie on to the bank. If I saw this happen was it a one-in million occurrence or are bass, wild browns, and stocked fish gobbling them up? I don't fish Hammer a whole lot but have definitely seen fewer fish(especially brookies) the last couple years

Finally, I think for a variety of reasons, Hammer is the perfect stream to do a large scale project on.It has a history of fish, a highly degraded upper section I think it could make a huge difference for the fishing and the environment. I'm anxious to follow and help with Doc Fritchey's efforts.

P.S. Why doesn't the Hammer Project even have a spot on the Doc Fritchey website?
 
Every time one of these floods occurs, I imagine the browns survive it better than the brook trout. Every flood = a tip toward brown trout dominance. The climate is changing and flooding rainfall has become much more frequent in SE PA in the past 10 years. This creates more events that shift the balance in favor of browns.

I've only fished hammer and tribs a few times. I never went far enough upstream to get to the brookie dominated water, so I can't speak to anything happening there. It's been several years since I fished the SGL water anyway. But I do remember some past discussions here about one of the small tribs being a shadow of its former self...due to runoff and loss of pool habitat IIRC.
Where did you fish? Until last number of years, brookies throughout the creek above the dam. It's not necessarily the higher up, the more brookies found. Unless I'm wrong, most are centered around Kettle and Walnut.
 
That mind
I don’t see a conflict between managing for more larger ST in a population and having greater genetic diversity. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, particularly since I explained the specific options that could be used to produce larger ST and that all of those techniques would work within the existing ST populations (improve big fish habitat, increase forage, reduce rare cases of overharvest, etc). Hammer is a productive stream and where habitat would allow I would expect larger ST, like the one in the photo, could be produced.

It is not clear to me that you understand why significantly increasing the number of legal size ST in a population was an objective of the C&R ST reg package that failed. Likewise when others suggest that these populations were already good; therefore, the wrong populations were selected the reason for the study is again being misunderstood. The study was in response claims that there was a statewide ST overharvest problem, and in my experience, the most frequent specific complaint has been the statewide 5 fish creel limit. Statewide is just that…statewide! If it’s truly a statewide problem as was claimed, then conducting a study on statewide waters, especially public waters with both multiple control waters and multiple treatment waters, should reveal the problem and answer the question. One should not have to cherry pick suspected impacted waters.

The results did not surprise the staff. They corresponded with the low to no angler use on the vast majority of wild trout streams that all of us had seen over decades of fieldwork and corresponded with the low angler use and harvest that had been recorded in the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study.

In the past you have mentioned or cited research that suggested inbreeding produces smaller ST. The argument might be more convincing if in the field ST adult size and adult habitat in Pa were commonly mismatched. In my experience, however, I don’t recall seeing that except perhaps in one very degraded, very infertile, mine acid or acid precip stream at a higher elevation in Schuylkill Co. In that case the entire population was low density as well for the available physical habitat so other factors were most likely at play.

While this inbreeding problem could in theory eventually occur, I think it’s a topic that possibly deserves more field research. I don’t think there is necessarily going to be much sympathy for moving fish around for genetic purposes after all of the efforts to finally develop a permitting system without stream specific genetic information to justify it, both from donor streams and recipients. I certainly don’t see it as an immediate critical problem in comparison to cooling streams down (buffers, as troutbert mentioned) in anticipation of climate change temperature impacts. After all, it takes years for planted trees to provide shade along a stream. When I say years, I’m referring to 10-15 that I have seen in more recent projects. The beauty of buffer development is that the streams benefit whether it’s the climate change “deniers” or the “believers” who are right.

No ones “moving fish around” without looking at the genetics first and in fact it takes a lot of thought and weighing the risks of out breeding depression. In breeding depression can create leas fit stunted fish yes, you don’t have to do genetic rescue or “move fish around” as you call it if you just manage at waterahed scale, the fish move around for you. Genetic rescue/translocation is when there is a barrier causing harmful inbreeding. I have to date never proposed “moving fish around” I have said we should investigate if genetic rescue is indicated which means we do all the further investigation you mentioned. These ideas are not my own I am literally just telling repeating the understanding of this topic detailed in many publications, disertations, and as presented at fisheries management conferences for subject matter expert
 
It is what it is at this point. Lower Hammer will always be what it is. People insisted on their lake front property....I suggest enjoying the Smallmouth in the warm months, and that pond-great largemouth fishing.

The Upper Hammer could, and should be, a lot more than what it is. And McSneek's reports should not be ignored. Before moving to WV, I fished upper Hammer a lot. I've caught some of my largest brookies to date up there. This year, on a trip back to Lanc, I fished it 3 days, all in ideal conditions. Only a few deep holes really produced fish, and it was brownies 3 to 1. Now, I've had bad days on it before moving down here, so taken by itself, I would think nothing of it. But combined w/ what McSneek is experiencing, as well as a few others I've spoken to, SOMETHING is off...It does suffer from pressure and harvesting in the Spring thanks to the State continuing on insisting it get stocked. I've personally seen stringers full of both native and stocked fish on many, many occasions. But that's been true for a long time. Something else may be happening...
Well I wasn't going to ask this based on my complaint about the dam, but since you brought it up, is that pond open to fishing. :)
 
I think there are a few reasons. There are a lot of local people active on the board and they enjoy sharing their experiences. Hammer is a unique stream. While it's not Penns Creek, it is a large Limestone stream that is influenced by a number of freestone streams. In the past it has been home to large brook trout. Numerous people have caught large (up to 12 inches) brook trout including myself. In certain stretches it used to be possible to have 30 fish days.It does have numerous hatches including sulfurs, Caddis, and BWOs in the fall. I have watched the County park water come alive with wild fish and caught brookies in water pounded by bait fisherman after the Sportsman's club stocking. In Lancaster County that is pretty impressive.

It has a unique history (Mill Dams, Whiskey Distillery, etc) and a dam on it. Its lower stretches were always viewed as one of the top trout (stocked) streams in Lancaster County. Its dam is a popular fishery and recreational area creating the classical issue of the value of dams. Its dismantling brought an outcry from many people. Hammer was also at the center of controversy over a proposed sewage treatment project. The Lancaster Conservancy has set aside valuable lands which have highlighted the changing views of land, ecosystems, and provided recreation for many.

I don't have to detail again all the many man-made indignities Hammer has faced. I myself watched a bass from the newly rebuilt dam chase a 3 inch brookie on to the bank. If I saw this happen was it a one-in million occurrence or are bass, wild browns, and stocked fish gobbling them up? I don't fish Hammer a whole lot but have definitely seen fewer fish(especially brookies) the last couple years

Finally, I think for a variety of reasons, Hammer is the perfect stream to do a large scale project on.It has a history of fish, a highly degraded upper section I think it could make a huge difference for the fishing and the environment. I'm anxious to follow and help with Doc Fritchey's efforts.

P.S. Why doesn't the Hammer Project even have a spot on the Doc Fritchey website?
Don’t know, will ask DFTU about doing something on the site.
 
An older reports about the Hammer Project

Thanks Gene Beam! I had seen that. I know the site has links to other projects and this seems like the biggest one and would get a starring role on the website. I didn't see anything but a lot is getting done! They do a lot!
 
Where did you fish? Until last number of years, brookies throughout the creek above the dam. It's not necessarily the higher up, the more brookies found. Unless I'm wrong, most are centered around Kettle and Walnut.
Interesting, I had been told the brookie stronghold was farther up in a private section. I've fished from the dam up about a half mile, I think. It was more than 5 years ago. I caught a 50/50 mix of the two species during the sulphurs. I've also fished Walnut and found it to be quite poor fishing. I found a handful of brookies but all seemed to be YOY and no adults.
 
Interesting, I had been told the brookie stronghold was farther up in a private section. I've fished from the dam up about a half mile, I think. It was more than 5 years ago. I caught a 50/50 mix of the two species during the sulphurs. I've also fished Walnut and found it to be quite poor fishing. I found a handful of brookies but all seemed to be YOY and no adults.
Honestly I have never fished up much from the pumping station. When I have, a couple browns is all I caught. When I was a kid I remember fishing up Walnut and hearing multiple fish splashing upstream ahead of me. Maybe 8-10 years ago I saw 6-8 brookies in on of the deeper lower pools. A couple were pushing 12. Since then, I have barely seen a fish in there. That includes a many hikes up and down the stream during all 4 seasons.In March I did see one fisherman who said he had caught 2 tiny ones way upstream on Walnut. I have a feeling Walnut was impacted by sedimentation upstream. About 8-10 years ago I walked in to Kettle on the game lands in the fall. It was teeming with small brookies. I have walked it a couple times in the last year and fished it once. Saw 1 trout. I am not that familiar with upper Hammer. I'm not sure if the upper has its own fish or not. I am anxious to see the results of stream surveys in the area.
 
It is not clear to me that you understand why significantly increasing the number of legal size ST in a population was an objective of the C&R ST reg package that failed. Likewise when others suggest that these populations were already good; therefore, the wrong populations were selected the reason for the study is again being misunderstood. The study was in response claims that there was a statewide ST overharvest problem, and in my experience, the most frequent specific complaint has been the statewide 5 fish creel limit. Statewide is just that…statewide! If it’s truly a statewide problem as was claimed, then conducting a study on statewide waters, especially public waters with both multiple control waters and multiple treatment waters, should reveal the problem and answer the question. One should not have to cherry pick suspected impacted waters.

The results did not surprise the staff. They corresponded with the low to no angler use on the vast majority of wild trout streams that all of us had seen over decades of fieldwork and corresponded with the low angler use and harvest that had been recorded in the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study.
My issue with the ST reg test in PA has been that average fish size, or population health needs to be examined at a watershed scale, not by examining one tributary, or a small section of a single tributary. It's an issue I have more broadly with how we seem to want to quantify population size or health by surveying small sections of streams. As if these sample reaches are closed loop aquariums and the only thing that impacts the population is what happens within the reach itself when tested at the same time of year every year. Whether it's angling or any other impact, population health and average fish size is dependent on a whole host of variables beyond what happens in a 300 m reach, or several 300 m reaches within a single 2nd order tributary. To test a theory about the impact harvest (or anything else) has on a "population", or average fish size within a population, to me, you need to look at the impacts across the entire watershed, not what happens in one tributary.

Again, this watershed-scale approach to management has been tested outside of Pennsylvania with vastly different outcomes than what was found in the tributary scale study in Pennsylvania.
 
I’ve never seen a wild trout population in Pa with all large fish, so managing solely for large trout really isn’t even an option. Producing larger trout by improving habitat, forage, reducing competition, or controlling overharvest (a rarity in purely wild trout fisheries in Pa), in essence “managing for larger trout,” is hardly going to eliminate the smaller trout.

What genetic data from Hammer suggest that there is a “significant conservation genetics barrier?” Research from W Va showed that ST were genetically different just within short stretches of stream almost as if they were family groups for lack of a better term. This suggests to me that genetic diversity would have a good chance of not being problematic when speaking about a ST stream with interchange among multiple ST tribs and the main stream where freestoners and limestoners are undergoing differing stressors.
There's also research out of Maryland that showed genetic differences across multiple sites within the same stream. Conversely, within that same watershed, there were other tributary/mainstem populations that showed a high rate of gene transfer. So there's a high rate of variability of gene transfer within watersheds or even single streams. Or, there are likely as many examples that indicate a high rate of gene transfer as there are examples that show little to none.

Something that concerns me about this pursuit of larger fish size is that we don't know what exactly is driving the average smaller fish size. Prior to colonialization, there may have been extremely high rates of movement within systems. Then we started impacting habitat in the lower reaches of systems, introducing nonnative species, largely unregulated harvest, barriers, and a whole host of other anthropogenic impacts. What we see today in terms of average fish size could be the result of selection pressures that makes a smaller size more advantageous to survival. As the fish that used to move great distances failed to return or disappeared completely, its possible adaptation has caused the species to reduce its propensity to move in some cases.

I read a study somewhere recently that looked at the behavior of brook trout (edit, it may have been another salmonid species) in a stream with a large impassible natural waterfall. They found that there was very little downstream movement in the population above the falls suggesting that the population had adapted (or evolved) to prefer an upstream movement and very little large-scale movement amongst individuals. Essentially, those individuals that swam downstream and never returned impacted the population's propensity to travel over time. Now consider what we've done to downstream reaches on brook trout streams. Warmer water, dams, habitat loss, pollution, increased predator and competitive species, angling, etc. etc. etc. might be having the same effect on the amount of movement happening within systems.

The bottom line is that behavior and the average individual size are highly variable from region to region, watershed to watershed, or even stream to stream within the same watershed. We don't know what physical trait or behavior is advantageous to the long-term survival, or the health of a population. Trying to modify a population's average size structure to suit our preferences as anglers is reckless in my opinion.
 
Honestly I have never fished up much from the pumping station. When I have, a couple browns is all I caught. When I was a kid I remember fishing up Walnut and hearing multiple fish splashing upstream ahead of me. Maybe 8-10 years ago I saw 6-8 brookies in on of the deeper lower pools. A couple were pushing 12. Since then, I have barely seen a fish in there. That includes a many hikes up and down the stream during all 4 seasons.In March I did see one fisherman who said he had caught 2 tiny ones way upstream on Walnut. I have a feeling Walnut was impacted by sedimentation upstream. About 8-10 years ago I walked in to Kettle on the game lands in the fall. It was teeming with small brookies. I have walked it a couple times in the last year and fished it once. Saw 1 trout. I am not that familiar with upper Hammer. I'm not sure if the upper has its own fish or not. I am anxious to see the results of stream surveys in the area.
There is a pond at head waters of walnut that drops sunfish species into walnut and sometimes those ponds fail in high rains and add sediment, that happened on neighboring shearers run before don’t know if happened on walnut but walnut dis have a huge timber sale on private land on its headwaters which no doubt contributed some. DFTU approached owner and I think there was possibly some mitigation that could be done I have to check in with the person who was following up with that
 
In March I did see one fisherman who said he had caught 2 tiny ones way upstream on Walnut. I have a feeling Walnut was impacted by sedimentation upstream.
That was my experience also. 3 tiny ones way up. No real pools anywhere. Just a few pockets deep enough for the fingerlings.
 
In line with what silverfox was saying essentially we have all these environmental stressors past and present that have no doubt had an effect on the fish themselves. Now in present day we need to get away using the selfish fishing goals related to what we want from the species(size catchable numbers) and look more at what the fish needs from a pure conservation stand point which is fostering as rapid as possible adaptation no matter how large or small individually or few or many overall.

To make it even simpler……..

We cannot handcuff the protection/ recovery of native brook trout, a species of greatest need in the state wild life action plan, to what kind of fishery they provide.

Flat out PFBC needs to manage for them/protect them or don’t. Putting out a “wild trout management plan” and eluding to an effort to recover brook trout extremely misleading and disingenuous when the hatchery program is in the top 4 threats as listed by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture.

I do give them credit for the stocking authroization and I hope everyone on here supports with public comment but we need a lot more. In the case of Hammer Creek I have spoken with the AFM in the past he knows what we are trying to do. Their still stocking it with invasive species and attracting hoards of put and take anglers to the mouth of walnut. Others have mentioned native brook trout going out on a stringer regularly I’ve seen it too.
 
Back
Top