Great Flies That Don't Catch Fish

Some/Many fly patterns have been and are 'created' by skilled, knowledgeable fly fishers who happen to be fly tiers too. In all probability, the pattern was based on someones own experience. Or, because of local conditions or available materials, someone simply tweaked an existing pattern. Regardless, due to the explosion of information in the last 15 or so years, a pattern can get significant publicity, perhaps tied to a financial incentive, and people try it. Some patterns just look, to we humans at least, so buggy and enticing we think that, 'gee if I were a trout, I'd jump at that'.

My question is this and no one needs to identify a pattern or name anyone:
Are there well known fly patterns that you've used, at least a reasonable number of times, and could not get a rise or a bump? Have you said as much or have you simply lost all faith in them and not used that/those patterns anymore?

I have!

Somehow I never got to the point where I blamed the pattern. I blamed myself, or just took it as an off day. The patterns stayed in my fly boxes.

Conversely, I suspect most of us have our few go-to patterns that see a lot of water time. And I had a few don't-match-anything patterns that were fun to try when matching flies struck out. The Infamous Pink Worm was a great example of this. Or a humpy in a tiny high mountain brook trout stream.

At any given time, some flies are better than others, but I don't think there are really any bad flies. IMO, not being successful with a certain, popular fly is generally a matter of not using the fly at the right time / place or not having confidence in the fly. The Prince nymph, for example, is a very popular fly and I know flyfishers who use it quite successfully. However, I've never had much confidence in it and don't catch many fish with it.

I, like others have stated, do not feel there are certain patterns that are not fish producers because no fly tier is going to go to the trouble of creating a pattern just for the fun of it. Most patterns were created to imitate a certain food source in a particular body of water and were very successful but not successful in other bodies of water because the food source it imitates does not exist in that particular body of water. As an example, there are some beautiful stonefly patterns out there but if your favorite fishing water does not contain stoneflies, the pattern will not be much of a producer for you. One needs to stick to patterns that imitate a food source that exists in their water they fish.

Just my thoughts and nothing more....

A long answer:

"Some days you gets the bear, some days the bear gets you". ie: There are days when almost any fly pattern catches fish and other days when no fly seems to be able to catch a fish. Luckily those two extremes are not the norm. Usually there are some flies that will catch fish. The very next day those flies may produce nothing but others will. Sometimes the fishing is so off that you dig down deep into your fly boxes and come up with a "Hail Mary" fly, one that you normally would never use but why not give it a try. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However, knock on wood, I have never been skunked while fishing a river. Something will work, you just have to find the fly and present it where and when it is needed.

A short answer: I believe that at certain times any fly will catch a fish.

Larry ---sagefisher---

I think this explains it pretty well. In a similar discussion a well known friend mentioned he had never caught a fish on a wooly bugger. I realized I had never caught a fish on a Muddlers Minnow and then I realized I never fish Muddlers Minnow. So the next time I went fishing, in the Hooch, I tied one on and remedied that situation. Attachment 13214

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarrenP

I, like others have stated, do not feel there are certain patterns that are not fish producers because no fly tier is going to go to the trouble of creating a pattern just for the fun of it. Most patterns were created to imitate a certain food source in a particular body of water and were very successful but not successful in other bodies of water because the food source it imitates does not exist in that particular body of water. As an example, there are some beautiful stonefly patterns out there but if your favorite fishing water does not contain stoneflies, the pattern will not be much of a producer for you. One needs to stick to patterns that imitate a food source that exists in their water they fish.

Just my thoughts and nothing more....

---

Well put!!

Can't think of any that I feel "won't" catch fish. But I can say there are a few that I just plain old seldom tie anymore, let alone fish. Can't remember the last time I caught a fish on a standard pheasant tail nymph. I have tied and fished , but never caught a single fish on a copper john though.

Just the opposite for me, I use PTN and Copper Johns (both copper and red) a lot and they catch a lot of fish for me, along with Prince Nymphs, Hare's Ears, Pat's Rubber Legs, and on and on. Ain't fishing great? :)

Larry ---sagefisher---

Many has been the time I thought I had discovered the fly/popper/lure of all time. Whatever one that happened to be, catching one right after the other. Come right back to the same place later and the fish wouldn't give the same fly the first look. Last month we had a big get-together at one our favorite fishing holes. In this case it was bream we were fishing for and I found out that a yellow popper was the ticket. Went back the following week and they wouldn't give that same popper the time of day; what worked was a Goddard Caddis.

"I have tied and fished , but never caught a single fish on a copper john though". same here and you can add a scud to that list as well.

Yep, the Copper John has fooled very few fish for me to the extent I don't carry them anymore. It's just one of those things. I agree, too, that most any fly will catch a fish at the right place at the right time.

I suspect some of the success of a particular pattern, or lack thereof, has to do with how an angler uses/works/presents it.
I have a buddy who I've fished with for over 20 years. We've learned from each other, and have very similar fishing styles. Yet, there are some lures (in this example, since we started out with spinning gear) that I catch a LOT of fish with, and some that he catches a lot of fish with...but when we each try the other guy's great lure, we catch very few or none. And that is standing next to each other, casting into the same areas. Its a weird phenomenon, and I'm sure the same thing occurs with fly patterns.

This is a good thing, IMO...that means not every angler will be showing the same flies to the fish all the time.

On another board the fly that came up and had it's proponents and distracters was the Jassid. Beautiful little fly I've tied a few of and have them in my box but never used. Like so many have stated the ones who had good luck with the Jassid used it at the right time, which was when beetles and small terrestrials were hitting the water. I did not do good as a fly imitator but did well as a beetle bug, and many said the 'gills really love it.

Another fly brought up that is a standard in every fly box was the Wooly Bugger. Surprising how many people say they cannot catch a fish on it. My guess is they never tie on one since even I can catch fish on it.

I think what happens, regardless of whether or not a pattern "will" catch fish....we naturally migrate to the "best" performing patterns on a given water. At that point, the rest of the tried patterns tend to become irrelevant.

I am gonna get hate mail for this...

Can't buy a fish on a Wooly Bugger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vicrider

Another fly brought up that is a standard in every fly box was the Wooly Bugger. Surprising how many people say they cannot catch a fish on it. My guess is they never tie on one since even I can catch fish on it.

---

Not so. I've never caught a trout on one, and I've certainly tried. The problem is, I only ever try it out of desperation, when I already haven't caught anything on an assortment of wets and other streamers. It should be no suprise that a wooly bugger doesn't catch anything either. I suspect that many of the flies being mentioned here fall into the same category: they fail to produce a miracle when nothing else is working either. Lack of confidence in a fly leads to a self-fullfilling prophecy.

I have no doubt that the W.B. is a great fly. I've caught plenty of warm water fish on it, but it bats earlier in the line-up when I'm bass fishing. I've seen plenty of trout caught on them, but still have never done so myself.

A yellow-dubbed #10 weighted WB with brown hackle, tied on a standard nymph hook has been a staple for years, fished with a split-shot and bottom-bounced like you were drifting a worm. ;)

Woolly Buggers are great flies. I have caught many, many trout and bass an Crappie & Bluegills and Perch on Woolly Buggers, black or green or brown while lake fishing. I also had good success with them in the rivers. A great fly.

Larry ---sagefisher---

When I fish I consider it not a restaurant, It's the ARMY. They ( YOU) WILL eat what I offer or else! ( else-I don't catch anything). The ONLY creek I have EVER had to "match the hatch in color and size" was Flat Creek in Jackson WY. I'll admit I haven't fished all fabled waters but in those I have, the fish pretty much ate my offerings. I practice the obvious, rising fish- drys, no rising fish- nymphs but not to abandon drys entirely. Just because they're not obviously top feeding doesn't mean they won't . All this from my personal experience and not a lecture.
Currently in Northwestern Wyoming beating the beautiful waters to a froth.

Mark

The copper john was a productive fly for me. Maybe it is geographic. I then lived in the same town where this fly was invented.

I 've caught many , many fish on woolly buggers of all colors save one, olive. Can't do it. will fish it, nothing, tie on a black, or peach, or white, whatever, and catch fish. it's like a Jaguar F class, a car I'd love to have but will probably never buy it.
Best,
Steve

This explains a lot about why we don't catch fish on certain flies. I have never caught a fish on a Elk Hair Caddis, but there aren't many or any caddis where I primarily fish._____________________________________________ _Attachment 13237

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NJTroutbum

A yellow-dubbed #10 weighted WB with brown hackle, tied on a standard nymph hook has been a staple for years, fished with a split-shot and bottom-bounced like you were drifting a worm. ;)

---

You fish that color for trout, I guess? I never thought of colors other than olive, black or brown. I've got to expand my horizons.

I was never happy with the results I got fishing Royal Wulffs that I tied; never could get them to float very long. It wasn't a good fly for me to tie early on since it's one of those where I really did need to get the proportions right or end up with a wet fly tied with dry fly hackle. Kinda gave up on them and haven't tried to tie one in years.

Regards,
Scott

Lastchance,

I have used Yellowish colored Woolly Buggers in the rivers, they just about match the Crane fly larva that get washed into the rivers in the spring time. Very effective when the trout key in on them.

Larry ---sagefisher---

Interesting thread! I imagine what works and what doesn't has a lot to do with geography and food sources in the water we fish. I've caught fish on most of the flies folks have found unproductive. I've done very well with scuds in olives, tans, chartreuse, pink, and orange in water where scuds live. I've also done well with copper johns in various colors especially when fished in swifter pocket water found in Western Freestone rivers where you need to get the fly down quickly. My most productive fly is a Microbugger in olive or black and in size 14 or 16. I fish it dead drift as a nymph and stripped as a streamer at the end of the drift.

Now a fly I've done poorly with is the Silver Hilton used for steelhead. I know steelheaders who swear by it, but it has never been productive for me so it just sits in the box while other, more productive patterns see a lot of water.

Having seen trout strike at a cigarette butt I do not believe that there is any such thing as a fly that won't catch fish. Of course some are not much better than a cigarette butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rainbowchaser

Having seen trout strike at a cigarette butt I do not believe that there is any such thing as a fly that won't catch fish. Of course some are not much better than a cigarette butt.

---

The main advantage of the free-floating cigarette butt is that it has a drag-free drift.

Ed

I think any fly within reason, fished the right way, at the right time, and in the right place, will catch a fish.

Allan, seems I might have a few rows of said flies in my fly boxes. It surely seems that way at times!

Jeremy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lastchance

I think any fly within reason, fished the right way, at the right time, and in the right place, will catch a fish.

---

That seems like a valid argument and I'll go one step further ... Replace the word 'fly' with 'cigarette butt' and it also makes sense. However, even given the circumstances you identify, certain flies will catch more quality fish then other ones. Paraphrasing a familiar saying, 'All flies are equal, but some are more equal then others'.