Little River Outfitters Forum

Little River Outfitters Forum (
-   In The Backcountry (
-   -   Remote Smoky Mountains Brook Trout Waters (

JoeFred 09-21-2010 08:02 PM

Remote Smoky Mountains Brook Trout Waters
As well as I can determine from reading this forum and talking with National Park Service (NPS) officials, the general concensus seems to be that little or no harm should come from naming streams that hold brook/speckled trout that are in remote areas of the Smokies. CERTAIN PORTIONS ONLY of the streams listed below, which are two or more miles (via maintained trails) from the nearest public road or shoreline, held brook trout when sampled by the NPS Fisheries Management biologists (list not all inclusive). Recently this sampling program ended without being completed due to the loss of fundng. Major drainages that reportedly hold brook trout in certain streams, but that were not sampled include Raven Fork, Noland Creek, Hazel Creek and, with the exception of Ekaneetlee Creek, the Eagle Creek drainage. In the interest of safety I strongly urge readers to use this information in conjunction with, at the very least, the official Great Smoky Mountains Trail Map and Guide and the USGS quadrangle topo map PDFs linked below:

I failed to realize that whereas two miles or more of hiking would be necessary to reach all the previously listed streams, a number of them were near trails that permit horses. I have since deleted the latter category streams from the list. Sorry for the oversight. JF

I value this forum and the opinions of its members. Since more than a couple of you say listing these streams is not such a good idea, I dropped them altogether. But since I went to the trouble of helping those who might not have known where they are already, I left the links to the free USGS topo maps that were involved. (You can buy these maps at the main visitors centers.) I'm told you can find specks in a number of streams between 2,000 & 5,000 ft elevation :rolleyes:. If that revelation and the maps tip is still thought to be giving away too much, then...? JF

Clingmans Dome Quad
Luftee Knob Quad
Mount Guyot Quad
Silers Bald Quad
Smokemont Quad

Jim Casada 09-21-2010 08:48 PM

Joe Fred--There are lots more to be added, and I'm speaking strictly on personal experience.
Clingmans Dome Quad--Nettle Creek
Cades Cove Quad--Most of Ekaneetlee Creek has specks
Luftee Knob--There are specks well below Balsam Corner Creek
I don't recall which USGS quad covers the upper Luftee drainage, but there are specks in Kephart Prong, Beech Flats Prong, Jack Bradley Branch, and nothing but specks in Kanati Fork.
that's off the top of my head
On Hazel Creek, there are specks in Bone Valley Creek, Defeat and Desolation Branches, upper Hazel Creek proper, and other feeders.
Jim Casada

JoeFred 09-21-2010 09:06 PM

Jim, I should have given you a heads up. My intentions were to exclude the easy to access waters out of regard for concern for potential abuse expressed numerous times on this message board. I anticipated other members, if desired, naming other remote waters holding specks in areas not sampled by the NPS.


Chuckwalla 09-21-2010 09:31 PM

I don't think this is a good idea. :frown:

Crockett 09-21-2010 10:23 PM

I understand your concern John but I don't think this list is going to hurt much when someone can catch specks right next to 441 or on road prong. Even if you hike a long ways to say fish Meigs Post Prong because you see it on the list above you probably are just going to catch rainbows unless you go way the heck upstream above the falls ie 7 miles from where you parked your car at Elkmont hehe. I speak from experience there. Alternately you may just be camping at Smokemont or Cataloochee and catch a speck right there near the camp. So anyone with a topo map can pretty easily tell where they are "likely" to be at but like anything else it isn't always a sure thing.

JoeFred 09-22-2010 07:58 AM

John, I clearly understand your concern and respect your opinion. The main reason I shared this list is, as Neal said in another thread, is posters always mentioning the same few streams when telling a newbie a place to fish. In the future when we are asked, suggest to the person asking that they do a Search on where the brooks/specks are and let them choose on their own from the hits they get. Instead then, we could move on to sharing the real important information: respecting the species, surroundings, fellow anglers, and for the more generous among us, technique, flies, etc., you know, the real secret stuff.:smile:

Now as callers to the sports talk shows say, "I'll just hang up and listen."


mattblick 09-22-2010 08:35 AM

I've been lurking for a while and finally posted a couple times this week; this issue intrigues me.

I have been pondering this question: does anyone have reason to suspect that abusive harvesters/poachers would prefer or target specs so much as to go to such lengths to get to them? I tend to believe those sorts target tailwaters, but I could be wrong.

On a separate note, to JoeFred: how far down (campsite number) does your Upper Deep creek map cover? I am leaning towards staying at site 58 or 59 when I head down there in three weeks.

Drifter 09-22-2010 08:36 AM

I'm an infrequent poster here but fish the Park alot. I typically backpack to many of the streams you've mentioned.....for one reason.....solitude.

This topic always creates tension.

With that said, I've got to side with John on this one. What is the purpose for posting this information? Don't get me wrong, I believe in helping out a fellow fisherman to a degree but....I won't post my favorite fishing spots on the World Wide Web for all to see. I think oftentimes we become comfortable in our little internet community, oblivious to the fact that the rest of the fishing world is peering over our shoulder.

A certain message board coined the term "cyber scouting"....basically finding productive fishing locations without the sweat, ticks and mosquitoes. So this thread provides information at the click of a mouse....that took some of us many years of hard work to gather.

I've got to respectfully submit that this is a bad idea as well.

My dos pesos.

Chuckwalla 09-22-2010 08:59 AM

While I don't believe in naming non-stocked wild streams and I know that 90% of people will not put the effort in for these streams. However, I believe posting the names of less known streams that are in close proximity to roads is irresponsible. The extra "traffic" will only hurt the resource. Also, I believe the intent of Joe's post was not to list these streams.

I grew up in Maryville running around the Park and I put in a lot of miles and clime a lot falls here in GA, NC, and TN to fish spec streams,because that's what I enjoy. The thrill of the hunt if you will. I under stand this board doesn't have rules about naming streams. Just, I would prefer it be handled on a personal level via email, phone, or taking some one, but that's just me.

benintenn 09-22-2010 10:46 AM

I've been backpacking for a while now but have only recently picked up fly fishing in the past 3 months. One reason I wanted to learn was because a.) I already loved to fish (spinning, that is) b.) I have seen some beautiful mountain streams in my travels around the park that I always wondered if there were fish in and this hobby gave me the opportunity to find out.

Because this seems to be somewhat of a taboo issue, I will probably wont ask on this board about certain backcountry sites/streams. I'll just have to go out try them on my own. Yes, it does suck for a newbie but oh well, I gotta learn somehow. Most of the people I backpack with do not fly fish so I can't ask them to "show me some good places/honey holes." IMO, its not worth getting people in this community all worked up to try to get a little advice for this newb.

Since the sample was done by the NPS, is this information public record? Could anyone call up the park and get this info?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.