1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fishing Reports
›
3. Spring flow in late summer., Page 2

Perhaps one way that experienced trout fishermen “present” items in the drift is by realizing that they don’t always drift inertly.

With this understanding it becomes clear that in spite of what many perceive as something to avoid (drag) can in fact…at times… be highly desirable. Maybe, to become a better nympher, it would be wise to consider the action induced behavior of the fly resulting from the tippet, weight, leader, indicator if used, line and rod handling all interacting with the turbulent current and depth. A lot of people have a difficult time picturing this because; for the most part it occurs unseen. Consider the frustrated nympher who gives up because he can’t catch many fish as is typical of what Gonzo explains here:



Compare him to the experienced nympher who understands that it may take many casts for all the variables to come together, in that strike inducing presentation. Try as we might to always be in control we must understand that especially in nymph fishing unseen forces has a cause and effect to which at best we have limited control. The successful nympher knows the difference between too much and too little and what methods best adapt to changing conditions, all other necessary requirements taken as granted.



Hmmm….interesting. I enjoy seeing the take, knowing it’s a fish, lifting the rod tip and being rewarded from the depths.

Wow, whole lot of thought going into this one. I have nothing to add other than it somethimes has helped me to go away from a clinch knot to a loop knot. I don't know if it does anything at all at fish levels but I tend to catch a few more fish when I do it that way, especially on flies smaller than size 14.

I guess I can ramble with the best of them lol …

Not sure we're very far apart here really, except that some of you seem not to like indicators. I do. I fish indicators one way only though –“dead-drifting” so to speak, which in practice is more like controlled drag. For me it’s a matter of as much control as possible. And this becomes MOST important in turbulent water. This especially is where I like an indicator. It’s about control. With or without an indicator, slack gets you down, but does not provide detection. Tension (controlled drag) gives you feel and/or a visual on the leader, or indicator. Still, many fish won't be detected.

Indicator fishing is not the only method for presenting nymphs, although to look around trout streams nowadays, you’d think it was. To be fair, most people simply do not have the time to master many methods. But indicators can be a crutch, and if really relied on as a “bobber” (like one might use in still water), then they are very likely to be fished wrong, and that most often means: too damned fast. The current speed trout occupy most often is pretty slow, regardless of what the currents above it are.

Indicators have down-sides for sure. They can limit your casting (in some cases) by having that "thing" hinging your leader, and can be insensitive, esp so if you don't know your indicators. I have an “indicator box” with three general types, and several sizes that each support different weights. I fish them by high-sticking, or more or less long-lining with slack, depending on what's required.

I‘ve developed some versatility over the years, but fall short on Joe Humphrey’s methods, although I’ve dabbled with it and caught fish. I think he’s going about it the hard way, and had started his game long before indicators hit the ff world. I did too actually, but, being younger, I found indicators and never looked back. Before I even took up fly-fishing, I used tiny jigs (1/64, 1/32, 1/16) on UL spinning tackle, basically tying trout flies on jig heads –VERY effective, and MUCH more efficient than fly-line and split shot. But, within reason, that’s the very reason many of us choose fly tackle. (BTW: Joe uses mono for deep nymphing).

When I fish sans indicator, it’s for sighted fish, when fishing very shallow (greased leader -although I’m now as apt to use the dry/dropper rig), very deep (>5feet), or most often –when fishing an active nymph. I assume this is where you are coming from? Am I HOT??! lol!

When I fish deep with an indicator, it ends up being a combination of tracking the indicator and feel. At a certain depth, depending on water density and turbulence, the indicator, while tracking speed well becomes an afterthought as far as a strike indicator. Here is where I concentrate on feel.



Visual takes might not require a taut line, but every other one will, and you’ll need some tension on the line to detect them. Most nymphing requires controlled drag. That’s how we handle that third dimension. When fishing yarn indicators on relatively flat water, just like a dry fly, we may fish drag free at the 2 dimensional plane, but the nymph is not, or should not, be slack to the indicator. You’ll miss, and edify, a lot of fish that way.

I know what you mean by “knowing when it's supposed to happen”, but this happens with an indicator too. That's more to do with the water than the method I think. But in my experience this brings a much lower percentage of result than letting the fish tell you with a flash, wink, tug, or twitch of the line or indicator. Relying on a sighted take (where fish may not be plainly visible), or “knowing”, means you are missing a lot of unseen, unknown takes, or setting the hook on empty water a lot.

I agree that in many instances, staring at your indicator, and not using wider peripheral vision, can cost you. With an indicator I can still see fish that respond shallow enough –my indicator is rarely very far from the fly. When we started using them they were placed at the fly-line tip, bc we used to use the fly-line tip as an indicator, or later the leader butt (fluorescent mono). Worst place for an indicator! It’s really part of the terminal rigging, while the fly-line and leader butt are for positioning the rig. Again, the “strike indicator” is mis-named, it is a fly speed indicator, and helps keep the proper tension on the fly for strike detection. But it is an “indicator”, not to be all the angler is aware of.



Sawyer’s “induced take” like LaFontaine’s “sudden inch” (or was it Len Wright?), are specific movements at just the right place –within inches of the fish. Relying on this occurring at random is like hoping for a miracle. Miracles don’t catch many fish; control does.

I guess the short of it is, there are a lot of ways to catch nymph-focused trout. Not trying to sell anyone on indicators, but for certain applications, I’m not taking mine off. And I
am going to defend them: They are not “bobbers”. Yeesh! :)

No need to defend the use of indicators, Paul--at least not to me. And even if some dry-fly guys can't warm up to them, that's mostly just an issue of preference. We both know that, at some level, dry-fly fishing is just fishing an indicator with a hook in it. :)

You're right when you say that we're not really very far apart here. I wasn't arguing against what you're saying so much as trying (though perhaps not always succeeding) to amplify and add to it.

However, you do seem to have misinterpreted some of what I was saying. That's alright--happens all the time, probably my fault--but let me try to clarify a few points.



Quite the contrary, Paul. I was talking about ways to avoid "missing a lot of [otherwise] unseen, unknown takes" while fishing with an indicator. In other words, using the indicator as an added dimension to nymphing rather than as a way of ignoring other dimensions ("bobber fixation").

As you point out, strike detection with an indicator generally requires some (at least small) degree of tension or drag, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use other means of strike detection during parts of the drift when that tension is not yet established or has been momentarily lost--unless we really do want to miss a lot of unseen, unknown takes.

Even when some tension is established, other clues may provide some "indication" in advance of what we can see by watching the indicator alone, and this can often be critical with educated or sensitized fish. Otherwise, we may well end up "setting the hook on empty water a lot" (meaning, in this case, too late). But, on the flip side, I also think that if we're not setting the hook on empty water from time to time, we're probably relying too much on flagrant indications and ignoring the more subtle ones. I really doubt that we disagree on this--but it's OK if we do.



Now here, I really do disagree. These are not "miracles" at all. They are ordinary and commonplace occurrences, and because they are, we can rely on them even if we can't always control them. The random interactions and variations--especially in complicated drifts--do indeed catch many fish. They catch them for the same reasons as when we consciously or visually control them. Just because they may be unseen or random doesn't mean that fish won't react to them in exactly the same way. This is just one of the many reasons, as Allan/Falsifly correctly (IMO) points out, that complicated drifts over complicated bottom structures often require much more thorough and "creative" probing.

(BTW, it was Wright, and--my mistake--"induced take" may have been coined by Oliver Kite.)



It's just a guess on my part, Paul, but this might be why we sometimes appear to differ more than we really do. You are emphasizing control, and I am attempting to suggest ways of being open to and, in effect, utilizing opportunities that are often beyond our control: takes without tension or overt indication, random but useful variations in the drift, or trying to "see" the unseen. I don't mean for any of this to seem mysterious or philosophical, but I believe that recognizing these things expands our horizons (if you will) as fly fishers.

It is an understandable temptation for us to want to attribute our fishing success to our control, but sometimes we take credit for things that we really shouldn't. When a trout takes our fly, we easily assume that we have masterfully matched the hatch, or perfected the dead drift, or controlled something that was beyond our control. Sometimes we have; sometimes we haven't.

I'm not at all suggesting that good fishing is haphazard or just some sort of happy accident. But I am saying that (perhaps this analogy will only work for Mark Libertone), at its best, it can be like painting with watercolors: Happy accidents create the most subtle and amazing effects, something that is not strictly under the artist's control. It's not that great watercolorists just splash paint on paper and hope for a miracle. Instead, they recognize that the possibility of a happy accident presents itself every time the brush touches paper, and they use it without competely controlling it. And the artists can take some credit for the result--because they intentionally use and understand these "uncontrolled" effects. Forgive me if all of this seems like a lot of hooey; you may prefer oil paintings. :)



I, too, used to bridle when someone called my indicator a bobber. It is usually intended to associate the thing with those two-toned clip-on tree ornaments that festoon baitfishing holes. But I've grown to accept it, and I now use it to "indicate" that I refuse to be insulted by the word. I don't care if someone calls it a strike indicator, a drift indicator, a bobber, or a fluorescent doofus dingus...because it serves all of those purposes at times. :)

Well, my fellow Skuesian...I'm exhausted, and you probably are too. I've really enjoyed this discussion, Paul. Thanks. I don't know if I've managed to make the (very slight, I think) points of difference or disagreement a little clearer, but...am I warm? We're not far apart on this, and the difference might just boil down to nothing more significant than a preference for watercolors over oils or vice versa.

Best,
Lloyd


Edit for Aaron:

I wish I had the discipline to use a loop knot more often than I do, Aaron. Sometimes I only think of it after my fingers have completed their automatic clinch response. Louis uses the non-slip mono loop, Shawn likes a perfection loop, and I sometimes resort to a Duncan loop (Uni) only because my clinch-obsessed fingers find it easier. What loop do you like?

Do any of you guys ever use two indicators at the same time?

I find this all very interesting- I am beginning to see that I have a lot to learn as a nymph fisherman.

The only two ways I really know how to nymph with any success , is either with an indicator and wait for it to twitch or go under, or just swing it like a wet fly on a tight line, which almost always results in a lot of drag. I just haven't developed the skills or the focus that is necessary to be really effective- I catch a fair amount of fish on nymphs, but I always feel like I could be doing it better. For that reason I generally either try to avoid nymphing or just drop a little one off a dry. I am one who is guilty of staring at the bobber when I use indicators, I just haven't really known how to do it any other way (maybe that's why I've never liked nymphing that much). But this thread has gotten me thinking about trying to really learn to be better at this- and thanks for that.

After reading John Gierach's story "Zen and the Art of Nymph Fishing", I decided I would probably never be able to be a good nymph fisherman without an indicator- if I need Zen to figure it out, frankly I'm in a lot of trouble:)

Nice stuff, Motrout.

Thank you, Paul and Gonzo, for one of the best discussions on nymphing technique we've ever had on here. Even if it is just splitting hairs, your attempts to articulate the subtleties (and that's what I love about nymphing - the whole thing is subtlety) have provided much in-depth analysis for others to chew on. I've learned a lot and am eager to try out some of the ideas.

With regard to loops, I usually only use a loop for my curly flies because I want them to fish as loosely as possible. I honestly don't know if they fish better this way, though. I thought it was ingenious to use the very simple perfection loop to attach flies, but I've had a lot of mishaps lately with my perfection loops, and I'm considering moving away from it if things don't turn around soon. Fishing my curly flies is really a test of the balance between line control and dead drift, because they ONLY fish well with a totally dead drift, which can often mean loss of control. I've learned a ton about nymphing from fishing one in bright green - not only is it a very productive fly for me, but it also is so visible and three-dimensional in the water that it tells you precisely when you're getting a totally dead drift, when it's tumbling or swirling tantalizingly, and when it is dragging unrealistically. It also acts as its own indicator much of the time. It is one of very few flies I fish as a dropper off a dry, and I have learned that I can't adequately control it if it is more than 3 feet behind the dry (the further the dropper is from the dry the more likely it will drag badly for reasons already mentioned in prior posts or go out of control, but I usually like to get this fly as deep as I can). The dry is often not sensitive enough an indicator, and I know I miss a lot of strikes while fishing it under a dry. But I can fish it in places and in ways that would be very difficult to fish with traditional nymphing methods, and I often catch my greatest number or best fish when I fish it this way. So, if losing control sometimes means giving my fly the chance to get to more and bigger fish in a very realistic and tantalizing way, I'm willing to take my lumps missing some strikes.

I use several indicators. First, I use a black Sharpie to make bands on my flyline every few feet for the first 10 feet or so of line and then every ten feet after that up to about 40 feet. That allows me many visual contacts with my flyline if I can't see the tip, and also allows me to gauge easily how much line I'm throwing. When I use additional indicators (usually homemade deer hair indicators), it is usually for the practical reason that it keeps the tip of my flyline up, allowing me to see strikes, eliminating sinking and bellying of the flyline to reduce drag, and giving me a buffer between myself and my fly to keep mends from yanking the fly all over the place. If I am fishing faster, shallower water, I'll sometimes move the indicator up my leader toward my fly. I also like to fish a fairly short leader when nymphing, sometimes even going as short as 4 feet in tricky pocketwater, for better control.

-Shawn

Come to think of it Shawn, your Curly Worm is a pretty good example of taking deliberate advantage of (more or less) random interactions. As you know, that is also an idea I try to use with scuds. There are many other possibilities, if you stop to consider them.



Hey, Duane, the "Slayer of Spring Creek" speaks! Congrats, pal, I hear you were putting on quite a show of nymphing skills while you were visiting Shawn. Must be all that pent-up troutless Texas tension looking for a release. :)

I don't use two indicators in the literal sense, but if you get where I was going, I'm always trying to use as many "indicators" as I can in any given situation. I do think that a bright bit of mono (or something that serves the same purpose) below the indicator can help to pick up on indications that might not reach the main indicator or might reach it too late. There are many variations on this, but some of it just comes down to getting a bigger picture of all that's going on.

i think the reason i have an aversion to indicators is part of the big discussion going on here.
i learned to nymph without one. years later when i saw my buddies and others on the stream using them and knocking the fish dead i became jealous - even if sometimes i did as well as they did using my technique with no indicator. there had to be something to this indicator thing, i thought.
it really bothered me - mostly with great lakes steelhead. so i joined the indicator crowd thinking that if i put this magic thing on my leader i would start slamming those fish, too. and talk about "flyfishing pressured waters" gonzo!
well it didn't happen for me - and now i see the reasons why. i just became fixated on it (the indicator) and forgot all of the things (that you guys have been discussing) that made me a successful nympher. so i went back to my roots so to speak and once again started catching lotsa fish on my indicatorless and usually weightless rig with a long leader, light tippett and uniknot loop. i do carry 2 different indicators with me but i don't take them out often 'cause i now understand that i really don't know how or ever tried to learn how to use them effectively! i just forgot what i knew and expected the indicator to do the work for me.
i think that to inexperienced flyfishermen, an indicator (and czech nymphing for that matter as well) can be a crutch that allows you to ascend the ladder of flyfishing proficiency (if catching numbers of fish is considered proficiency) without really understanding how you are getting there. those of you (and now me, too) who really understand why our own personal technique is successful - whether it be indicator, long line, high stick, imparted motion or dare i say even chucknduck - can fish any of those styles effectively.
is that what i'm understanding from this discussion?

That's kind of a funny question, Tony, but I'm going to say yes. :)

I think it's fair to say that we all have our preferences or certain techniques at which we are more proficient than others. Some of these proficiencies (and also some preferences) are strongly shaped by the streams we fish most often--their character, hatches, fish, pressure, etc.

Sometimes this can also be a limitation when we fish new waters that are very different from what's familiar. At that point we have to decide whether we are going to try to adjust, adapt, and learn...or just avoid such places in the future. Either path can lead to success--look for water that suits what you do, or change what you do to suit the water. Honestly, I use both strategies.

Just great stuff here. So much I could keep on quoting and commenting. But after just a couple more it's time I moved on to other posts. Thanks all.

Lloyd, our conversation has rattled around in my brain for the past 24hrs, and I started to wonder about the assumptions I was making, and need to apologize for slipping into a defensive tone. It's tough when we can't see the white's of each others eyes lol. Extemporaneous writing has a lot of holes we just fill with our assumptions. Appreciate your willingness to discuss at depth.


Agreed, that we don't always see the interactions that actually catch each fish. But I will say one thing about control -getting a grip on speed control did more for my nymphing success than any other thing. The rest is gravy.

BTW: I come from a family of artists. My Dad was an illustrator, and has retired into painting. His favorite is watercolor, as it mine. But I have an oil I did of a steelhead rising to a dry fly over my desk here. I'll post a pic someday -maybe we can share some artistic renderings of the what rattles around in our heads.

As to GutCutters comment on what works for each of us: Absolutely! Go with what you have developed, and take it as far as you can. But we certainly wouldn't ever want to be afraid to experiment. There are a lot of really good anglers with ideas out there. In the end, technology and ideas can be great, but we gotta make it work for us, where we fish. Fly-fishing just isn't easy. I wouldn't have it any other way. Success is SO much sweeter.

I've never used multiple indicators, as has been touted by some guides to help newbs "keep their leaders in line" (i.e. moving at the same speed). Since I haven't tried it I don't want to dis it. But in my mind one is enough, if at all.

Great stuff, gents.

Thanks - I think I just got lucky. ;-)

I asked, because I do use two indicators.

The first, which is always present, is a small (1/2" - 3/4") long piece of very small fluorescent orange tubing that I build into all my leaders when I tie them (it resides at the spot where the second and third sections of the leader are joined to one another, about 5' from the end of my fly line, and some 5-7 feet from the fly). If I'm fishing fairly shallow and/or fairly slow water I'll often use only this one, but really I prefer to fish faster water, where I often have trouble seeing this one by itself, so...

Most of the time I've also got on a Skip's Turn-On indicator a couple of feet above the slip-on built-in indicator (in the smallest size they make). It serves several purposes:

1. It's easier to see; the other one is easy to lose sight of when it goes under, this one is easily visible even when it does go under in very turbulent water.
2. Shawn alluded to this earlier in the thread, but the Turn-On serves as sort of a "buffer" between me and the fly - essentially protecting the fly from some of the foolishness that goes on as I try to position my fly line such that I get exactly the "drift" I want. (I've often heard Shawn characterize my mends as "violent").
3. In faster water I can't see my leader when it's in the water, but being able to see how that little submerged orange slip-on is behaving, relative to the floating Turn-On indicator on the surface, is very useful in helping me ascertain what my leader (and fly) are actually doing down there. Oftentimes, seeing how the two indicators are behaving relative to one another allows me to detect a strike that I wouldn't have noticed if I only had on one or the other.

One more thing:

On this last trip, Shawnny actually bummed a foam "Turn-On" indicator from me, because he couldn't keep his homemade all-natural deer hair indicators from sinking.

His journey to the dark side is progressing...

But I did give it back.

-Shawn

I know, Duane, but I don't think anyone needs to worry until he starts tying fancy presentation flies with synthetics and superglue. That, in case you didn't know, is one true sign of the coming Apocalypse. :)

To me the main thing in nymphing is know when a fish takes the fly. Anyone can lob a nymph rig upstream... the art is once the rig is drifting. Knowing when you should strike. A portion of my nymphed fish are happy accidents, as in I randomly set the hook. Or did I...could it be the "zen?"

An indicator is is a fixed spot on the leader that you can focus on. Some guys have told me to get rid of the indicator,thats it only training wheels.To which I ask how do you know when to set? What do you look at?

The training wheel analogy is not an appropiate one, Shane, and I would ignore it. Once one learns to ride a bike, the training wheels can come off. But to say the same of nymphing would imply that no good or experienced nymph fisher ever uses indicators, and that is simply not true.

Some forms of nymphing do not need an indicator. However, in certain situations, I think the more appropriate analogy to riding a bike might be to say that doing without any indicator is more like riding a unicycle. You can do it if you practice a lot, but it can be a contrary or unnecessary handicap, and it might not be the most effective way to get you where you want to go. But that can also be said about many other aspects of fly fishing, so (as always) the choice is yours.

These days, most (even good, experienced nymphers) probably do use indicators, in one form or another, though they may not use them all the time. Some never do, but their techniques incorporate other forms of indication, or the "indicator" that they do use differs only in degree from more "conspicuous" indicators. The difference between using a greased leader, a bright leader, a fly-line sleeve or fly-line tip, a dry fly, a tuft of yarn, or a genuine "doofus dingus" (just self-mockery, not a slight) is mostly a matter of degree.

I would say that the sources of indication become more varied and subtle as one gains experience, and the actual doohickey used (or lack of it) is more a matter of situation, desired result, or just plain preference. (In some cases, stubborn pride also attaches itself to that last reason.) If you look back through this thread, you should get some suggestions about other forms of indication to see/feel/sense, but these are not the only ones.

Sometimes, just setting the hook when the "Zen" moves you will pay off. When it pays off regularly, you are seeing through the eyes of your nymph, you are in karmic harmony with the universe, and you have reached angling nirvana (to muddle up some Eastern mysticism). However, you are also probably dead. :)

Gonzo...Did you think you were going to slip this one by me or were you just watching you "indicator" knowing that eventually I'd bite...:)

It slipped by me because I had fishing on the brain...If I know I'm going to get to sneek out after work I become a bit "fixated" myself. The car was loaded and I was watching the clock and trying to get it to move. Besides you guys were talking "do-bobbers" and I was having a hard time staying awake...;)

I've mentioned here before that my mentor was considered the "dry-fly" guy here in the state. I may have also mentioned the moment when he turned to me as we were "waiting for the feed" and said, "Spence. You know we do a hell of a lot of waiting around!" and then proceeded to become a hell of a nympher as well. He has always caught fish...It's scary sometimes...I have followed him downstream for years...Come to think of it maybe my practise of yelling down river at him everytime I caught a nice fish, "Willy! You missed another one!", is why we don't fish together as much as we use too...;)

We use to talk, like most dry-fly guys, about the "dark-side" or the "dark-art" of nymphing and now he's slipped off in to the void. My moment came last year May when he came up for a day on the Au Sable and we had fished in the morning and I had the hot fly and caught a couple nice fish to his zero. He actually sat on the bank for awhile and watched me fish. We then headed in to town for some lunch...

That evening when we headed back to the river I watched as he rigged up his nymph works and he had these little, colorful, pieces of plastic (they looked like fly line with the insides removed)and he placed them over a knot...When he was done he started out in to the stream as he always had...ahead of me...

"Willy. Isn't it "old-school" protocol that the dry fly guy goes first?" He smiled, turned to me, and with an exagerated bow and sweep of his arm said, "After you sweet-prince of the dry fly..." We headed downstream from Gates' and sometime later when I turned to head upstream to him he was gone...He had waded back up to his car and was driving back to Detroit.

As I was driving back from the river last night I listened in on a radio interview between some New York Muslim and a Rabbi arguing about that Mosque being built in Lower Manhatten and I thought that maybe it's just about time to not draw my/our lines-in-the-sand so deep...Hey! We are just suppose to be have some fun here...

Happy nymphing children of the angle!

Fishing report: I saw one lone "late" Hex on the bridge as I was walking back to the car last night...One bug does "not" a hatch make...
It was beautiful out though...Sometime after dark the moon came up over the trees and lit my way back upstream to the car.

As I was walking upstream...I saw these little glowing "worms" along the banks...Anyone have an idea what these may have been? Female lightening bugs?

I know this really is an out of joint post in terms of this thread but I didn't mean it to be when I started it...Sorry!

Spence the Prince

Great stuff all.

No comments beyond that. I'm saving the time for my next report thread. Speaking of that, I'm out the door!

Oh yes, those "glow worms" are firefly (beetle) larvae.

I have come to this regularly over time but had it really ruined home years ago fishing the Hamersley.

Arleen
File Recovery Software
http://www.datadoctor.biz