JoeFred--That's a really interesting concept, a sort of multi-angler diary. If carefully maintained over time, it could be highly revealing. Jim Casada
Here's one way to record the finds. The thought would be to record only the first report of a species caught on a particular stream. (Maybe five+ years out, could replace with more recent catches.) The image simulates what could be added to the Oconaluftee River system page, for example.
Last edited by JoeFred; 11-23-2009 at 09:55 PM.
JoeFred--I assume you would have a way to include other species as catches were reported. As your example shows, there are many streams in the Park which don't appear in any books covering fishing. A goodly number of these hold trout, although in many cases they are tiny three-inchers. I'll give one example. Several times over the years I've caught tiny trout in Bumgardner Branch, a tiny feeder of Deep Creek. Most came at the point where a footlog spans the rivulet (used to be just a footpath without the footlog) and leaves a bit of space to get a fly in the water. Yet from the standpoint of viable fishing it is a non-starter. There are scores of little streams of a similar nature. Do you cover them?
JoeFred, great idea. Regards, Silvercreek
Little River (120+ named streams)
Little Pigeon (90+)
Pigeon River (100+
Western Creeks (190+)
There is also an index of streams by system on the site that be useful to some.
Last edited by JoeFred; 07-02-2010 at 11:42 PM. Reason: Updated links
JoeFred--At least a few of the nameless streams hold trout. Of course they are, like the named example I mentioned in a previous post, tiny and pretty close to meaningless when it comes to fishing. Still, folks like the amazing Bobby Kilby, who is still busy adding streams to his list, find them interesting.
Another intersting aspect of this is that there are some larger streams, or at least portions of them, which hold few if any fish. The Park fisheries biologists could help with this more than me, but one example which comes to mind from the past is Alum Cave Bluffs Creek. The flood there in 1951 left it completely fishless for many years, and it is basically marginal to the present thanks to high acidity. Jim Casada
To view the tables with the sizes, select one of the watersheds from the Systems page. If you do not know which system a particular stream is part of, locate it on master list on the Home page and click the system link shown.
Joefred, thanks for the system link that was posted!! A lot of info to take in on a cold winter night!! It seems i'll be busy for hour upon hours! flyguys.
JoeFred--Very impressive stuff. I don't always agree with your size ratings (for example, I'd deem Kanati Fork as small rather than tiny--it's fishable for better than a mile) but as you say, they have to be subjective. Ultimately, looking at this from a fisherman's perspective, my interest is primarily in knowing which streams do and do not hold trout. I don't mention any in my book which don't, but by the same token I know there are some small ones holding trout I fail to cover. You've undertaken a massive and ongoing task, as I'm sure you know, and I guess in one sense it is a task which will be never ending. Sort of a similar situation to what Horace Kephart wrote about the outdoors in general--"In the school of the outdoors there is no graduation day."
I do have a couple of thoughts. I wonder if the Park fisheries biologists have a listing of which streams hold trout (or rather, which streams they know to hold them). They have a map showing where they know there are populations of specks and graciously let me use that in my book, but I'm wondering if maybe they have it for other species as well. Of course, the smallest and highest streams tend to be the ones holding mountain trout.
At some point I'll try to find some time to go through, stream by stream, at least for those drainages I know best, and check your size classification. I suspect most ones I might question would be the break between small and tiny. There have to be many hundreds, if not thousands, of branches in the Park.
Anyway, kudos on the fine work and here's one vote for your continuing what I know has to be laborious and time-consuming. Jim Casada
Thanks, Jim & flyguys--
Jim, I agree with you regarding Kanati Fork and have "upsized" it. I welcome your suggestions for others.
As soon as I can get the other two system maps done, I too want to devote much of my time to identifying and publicizing remote access streams that hold trout. I plan to follow up on Park fisheries resources. Also, and ideally, I would like to facilitate interested fellow anglers logging fish on the "back of beyond" streams. To that end I've just now launched a new page at smokystreams.com/bob. There are protocol issues to work through before soliciting input, however, since in some circles, simply divulging the stream name is considered a "contentious" matter.
Last edited by JoeFred; 04-07-2010 at 12:13 AM. Reason: Changed "on some message boards" to "in some circles"