High Country Lakes...Question

[McFlyfi]

Okay, so I’ve been going over my maps for a week-long backpacking trip I am taking in two weeks. I’ve “discovered” 2 small lakes at a very high altitude (10,000’), that are connected together by a very short creek, and connected by an outlet creek that flows for a couple of mile down a very steep gradient to a major body of water. A body of water that is pretty well known for it’s flyfishing. General location: Southern Sierra.

These small lakes are difficult (at best) to get to. One route has it going up and over and around in the neighborhood of 17-20 miles, with a Tehipite-like climb the last 2.5 miles up and over the 11,000’ saddle and down to the lakes. This route would require a minimum of 2 days, sort-of, kind-of along another creek that probably also holds fish of a particular, specific variety. A 5 day round trip would require 4 full days of hiking, and one day at the destination. It also would allow for a few hours here and there along this smaller creek.

Another route has a more moderate approach, (mostly) all along this major waterway.
Upon a cursory review, it is a longer distance, in the neighborhood of 25 miles, and would have good, proven fishing along the way after the first 11 miles. I don’t think I’d want to do it in 5 days, but could certainly extend either trip to 7 or 8.
Either way will be tough.

Anyway, the question:
Considering such a brutal approach, and the lack of direct information about the fishing (it appears to be a pretty popular destination for peak baggers), and given that either way would be an awesome backcountry “experience” would you try for it? It could be home to some significant specimens of a particular strain of fish. Then again, it could be filled with stunted fish. I have found some reports that the fishing is “fantastic”, no other mention of exactly how it was fantastic, or pictures of these “fantastic” fish.

I do know a few things about this lake- it’s not sterile, it freezes over in the winter, there are trees around it, even though it sits in a bowl below the western ridge.
What do you say? Big fish waiting for a serious angler to target them? Or folly chasing after stunted high country trout?

[Rockstar Fisherman]

If you've got the itch and have the time to scratch it, do so. Otherwise it'll always bug you till you do go. And lots of times people just don't catch or see the BIG ones, but that sure doesn't mean they aren't there.

My general approach is, if it contains brookies, then it's likely the fish are stunted. By all means there are plenty of exceptions to that but, it's kinda my rule of thumb upon initial investigations of potential new back country lakes. Sometimes I think it's the location that drives me to a particular area, not necessarily the fishing, though that is the ultimate goal, know what I mean?

Mike