Strike Indicators or not?

I recently watched a trout video called "Feeding Lies." One thing I hadn't appreciated before watching this video was how complex subsurface currents can be. They can actually go in the opposite direction of the surface current! The trout actually face downstream!

I think such complex conditions might be more common in the rocky, small water freestoners we fish here in the east. I mean, it would be nice to fish big water sometimes, but you work with what you've got.

The light bulb that went off for me was that a nymph can't be moving naturally under a strike indicator when the subsurface current is radically different than the surface current.

So there might be a real reason to fish without a strike indicator -- not just that it's more of a challenge. When the subsurface currents are complex, you can get a more natural drift and be more effective.

Think there's anything to this?

you know, there could be something to it.

i fish without an indicator, mostly because the fish i go after are spooky, most of the time. whenever ive used an indicator, i have caught noticably fewer and smaller fish. i thought they had become "wise" to what an indicator was and just closed up. but considering the waters i primarily fish, the theory makes sense. with several different surface currents at any time, it is certainly expected to have differing under-currents, and perhaps it is this causing the fish to turn down nymphs when using an indicator.

definately a good point, and something to consider when im nymphing.

I saw this video at a NJ TU meeting a couple of months ago. But it really didn't hit me until I watched Joe Humphries nymph without an indicator at the Somerset Fly fishing show last week. On video, of course.

I'll tell you what, I've seen a few posts on this board but what you got going here without a doulbt right on the money.

John W, what a good post! Light bulbs lighting up here, too. Just makes so much sense to me. I never use indicators (AKA: Bobbers) mainly because I just hate casting those things and catch more than my share without them. Maybe I'd catch more if I used them, don't really know. Anyhow, thanks for the good post. Should get lots of discussion.
Crackleback (Bob)

Jon,

Whenever I talk to people about indicators I always answer this way, " Only use them if you want to catch fish." Honestly, they aren't strike indicators as much as they are depth and drift regulators. On 90% of the rivers I nymph, they provide me a way of regulating the depth of the nymphs I'm fishing. They also allow me to fish the nymphs at the exact feeding lane of the trout. Trout aren't always feeding on the very bottom of the water table. There are times they feed near the top 25% of the water table, and getting the fly to them requires an indicator to suspend them.


------------------
Jude
Small flies work best. Elephants eat peanuts.
www.customflys.com

I never use strike indicators and fish nymphs about 95% of the time. One of my friends who fishes with me at times always uses a strike indicator and usually 2 droppers. We both catch our share of fish and we both enjoy our ways of fishing. My years of bass tournaments were spent fishing small leadhead jigs with curly tail grubs in 25 to 30 feet of water and I developed a good feel for bites plus constantly watching my line for any bites. I think that is why I usually fish nymphs and do very well with them without strike indicators. I have tried to use indicators and do not like them.

------------------
Warren

Actually, I wasn't trying to post about whether strike indicators are good or bad. I think the best anglers have an array of techniques that they can adapt to whatever fishing situation they encounter.

The popular thinking about nymphing is that strike indicators catch more fish, but that there are a few purists who stick with the traditional methods because they prefer them.

It's interesting to me that strike indicators might not be the best method all the time, and that there's a reason for that.

If you're nymphing rough water where the currents are complex, you might be better off without one. So learning how to nymph in the traditional way should be something you want to add to your arsenal of methods.

JonW

An excellent post ! And it should provoke further disscussion about nymph fishing, and further thought.
Tom Rosenbauer wrote an Orvis introductory to fly fishing book that hinted at just such a concept; again, most attention is given to currents when dry fly fishing, but not necessarily to sub-surface nymphing.
I find most of my nymphing is done with a 'tight line'and 'high sticking' (Leisering). Though I have used indicators, I find that I have had more success without them.
On the surface, these current variations are most evident and called "eddys", is there a name for sub-surface current variations ?

Dadflyer

Great topic!
I'm no expert on the fishing side of this, but I would guess that if you are using a strike indicator to regulate the depth of the nymph like Jude, the issue becomes less important as your depth lessens and you approach the surface. As you approach the bottom, the currents become more confused from reaction to the bottom. Wouldn't the size of your indicator(drag) come into play as well?

I find myself nymphing on a downstream swing often, so I'm able to feel the take pretty well, but I haven't yet developed the feel for nymphing upstream without an indicator.

To get a feel for all the currents in a river, a great way is to actually swim in one...preferably one with lots of eddies and even some mild rapids - swim on the surface and then swim the same line subsurface, go into and out of eddies, feel the down pressure on a swirly eddie line... You'd really be amazed at how powerful some of the sub-surface currents can be in even a "mild" river.

Charlie

I do nymph quite a bit and usually use an indicator. I guess I don't see the difference with or without when it comes to currents. Usually, I place my indicator on my shock leader or just below it at the beginning of the leader. If you're fishing a floating line, with the indicator very close to the fly line, that leaves typically anywhere from 7-9' of leader. So if I remove the indicator, I still have the floating line subject to the current at the top of the water column.

So I guess, the way I fish, indicator or no indicator doesn't much matter unless your worried about the indicator actually spooking the fish.

I fish a wild trout stream quite often that holds mostly browns with some rainbows. Not big water at all. I have found that even during non-hatch periods, trout have rose to the indicator. Maybe they're spooked by it at times it's hard to tell.

Stow

Learned to trout fish many years ago via my father-in-laws method, dare I say, rolling worms/corn along the bottom of the stream while split shot weighted. Started fly fishing about three years ago and started by nymphing on the bottom also while weighted. Then, the local fly shop owner where I do business told me that I'd catch more if I used indicators while nymphing. So, now, depending on the water conditions, it's either indicators, no indicators, bottom weighted, not weighted or a combination of some or all of the above. I think you have to adopt to the stream conditions and be flexible. I personally still like to fish without indicators; but, sometimes it's just not possible.

There is a time and a place for every technique. I don't think flyfishing is an "either/or" sport unless you want it to be. There are situations where a fly fished under an indicator will do better than without, and so on. The trick is to figure out when that is. That's what makes flyfishing so much fun.

I will say that for the first ~10 or 12 years I nymph fished I never used a yarn indicator. After that, I started using an indicator a lot. Fished properly, the technique is insanely deadly, sometimes almost too easy. So I will say that an indicator will work, even in complex currents, if fished and mended properly with the correct length of tippet and weight. If you don't adjust your length and weight to every drift you won't be as successful with this technique. Personally, I've just seen way too much success with this technique to pass it off as ineffective under all but special case situations.

BTW for the type of river you described my thought is that a dropper-dry set-up would be ideal (I bet you already do this). I often fish a small nymph under a big attractor with a #6 tungsten shot about 8-10" above the fly. I'll use between 24 and 48" of fluorocarbon tippet between the dry and nymph tied to the bend of the hook on the dry. On smaller, pockety freestones I have yet to find a more effective nymphing rig. Here in Colorado on the Big Thompson, a small tumbly freestone that fishes really well at 50-200 cfs, it's my "go-to" set up. Just treat the dry like a yarn indicator that will catch more than its fair share of fish, even when there aren't any bugs on the water.

I fish nymphs more than I do classic dry flies. Here is my take:
On small western streams I hardly ever use
indicators.
The smoother the flow(usually deeper) the more likely I am to use an unsinkable dry fly or foam as an indicator.
The more technical the water is (ie high pressure Blue Ribbon rivers) the more likely
I am to use some type of indicater.
Even if I am floating a baetis nymph in the surface film I often I often use a tiny
indicater to help keep track of my fly.
When I use an indicator I always use the smallest one possible, open my loops wade into the correct position, and use fine tippet from the indicator to the nymph.

Stowaway,

A lot of people fish nymphs with very little or no fly line actually on the water. But I think you're right, if the fly line's on the water, that current in will affect the nymph's drift.

I think that's why Joe Humphries says to lift your line over the currents as much as possible. And why longer rods are an advantage when nymphing.

Stowaway,

I have fish rising to the strike indicator all the time -- same as you. I think that, in the absence of a hatch, it's adaptive for them to occasionally sample unusual stuff in the drift.

If they're always exploring new things a small percentage of the time, then they can adjust and still eat when conditions change.

If you saw it on TV, then it must be true!

Do whatever you wish. But the nymph can't be moving naturally in the water if it is 1) attached to your line and 2) not really a natural nymph anyway. The strike indicator probably has an effect at times, but there is an effect from your line ALL the time.

Fish see all sorts of stuff coming at them underwater. If they want to eat it, they are going to eat it, regardless of what it is doing in the current. I catch fish while standing in the river with the rod under my arm sometimes. Talk about presentation!!

If you think the indicator is spooking the fish, try using a different indicator. On some rivers like the San Juan, I have seen black used instead of the bright colors normally seen. Then again I have fish come up and eat bright pink indicators, so...

This thread is an excellent example of how easy it is to over-think this whole fly fishing thing. Now, I don't mean we shouldn't analyze the situation and make the most "realistic" (whatever that is) presentation possible. But DG's post makes a couple of good points. I've actually hooked fish (in the lip) by pulling the indicator gently from their mouths after they've inhaled it. And I've seen even the tiniest indicator seem to spook fish, too. So I'm not so sure there's a general rule to be gleaned from all of this. I think you have to watch the fish you're dealing with at that moment and then respond to what they are telling you. When I have more than one fish strike my indicator, I switch to a dry-dropper rig...or just a dry. They're telling me they're wanting to feed on the surface...that's what I think. It usually works out pretty well. If fish are shying from an indicator I try to go with a smaller one. If that doesn't work and I'm working some good fish feeding along the bottom, then I will try it with no indicator. But...in general...I catch WAY more fish using a small indicator than I do using none at all. I tend to fish long drifts with 30-60' of line on the water. The secret is all in mending properly and an indicator is the best way to control depth.

With all that said, I agree that it is sometimes very difficult to get a drag-free drift in complex currents. But I don't see it as being any MORE difficult due to the presence of a strike indicator. The fly line causes me more trouble than the indicator.

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[This message has been edited by SilverMallard (edited 05 February 2005).]

DG and SilverMallard,

Overthinking? Maybe.

I rarely fish a location where I can get 30-60' of line out on the water. If I have to fish with that much line out, I'll follow your advice.

The point about the line being attached to the fly being the most artificial part of the whole set up is a good one. Having said that, I think you still want to minimize the appearance of the fly being unnaturally attached to something.

But I do think you're making somewhat the same point I was. There is no general rule, and you want to develop a range of methods that you can use in different situations. Some might involve the use of strike indicators and some might not. I think you said so yourself.

JonW,

I don't use them and I don't need them http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/smile.gif. While I don't fish nymphs as much as WarrenP, I am much the same way he is regarding indicators.


------------------
Robert B. McCorquodale
Sebring, FL

"Flip a fly"



[This message has been edited by dixieangler (edited 05 February 2005).]