What "Exactly" is a "searching pattern"?

Hans Wielenmann has an interesting pattern on this site called the F Bug. In answer to a question about the fly's purpose/imitation, Hans explained that the original is a general purpose emerger - as well as a searching pattern.

We have long had what folks refer to as "attractor" patterns. However, most of these flies were bright in color and/or had some sort of flash. I am thinking of a Royal Wulff or a Renegade, etc.

These patterns were often used when there were no insects hatching or on the water. The theory is that they might induce a strike. But, they were tied to have a general similarity with the shape of insects and had "triggers" which might induce a strike.

Do others use "searching" patterns similar to Hans' F Bug?

Thanks
Byron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

These patterns were often used when there were no insects hatching or on the water.

---

Whaddya mean were? I'd guess that 40 of my last 50 trout on a dry have been on a Renegade. Most of the other 10 were on Bivisibles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

We have long had what folks refer to as "attractor" patterns. However, most of these flies were bright in color and/or had some sort of flash. I am thinking of a Royal Wulff or a Renegade, etc.

---

Why do you equate "searching" pattern with an "attractor" pattern? There's no reason why the two must necessarily be the same. While attractors may always be considered searching patterns in the sense that they match no hatch, in the absence of a hatch, any pattern can be used as a searching pattern. I do not see it as category, in other words but a method of use; function, not form. YMMV.

How would you explain the difference between an attractor and a searching pattern?

In the bass tourney world, they have practice days where the fishermen try to locate fish. Relying upon info from their electronic equipment and knowledge they use lure that cover lots of water at the various levels to find the fish. That is what a search fly should do in my mind. Some of the most productive flies in this area are attractor, Rainbow Warriors, Blue Assassins, Lightning Bugs, (lots of flash and non-traditional colors) which I would use as searching flies on streams and lakes I was not familiar with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

How would you explain the difference between an attractor and a searching pattern?

---

I'd have to agree with whatfly, there is a slight difference in my mind. An attractor is something that doesn't look like anything in nature, but is bright, or flashy, or somehow gaudy. They may be used as searching patterns, but can sometimes be used in non-searching situations. For example, a Royal Coachman actually is a pretty good pattern to use during an iso hatch in fading light. I'm not "searching", I'm casting to rising fish whose location I know. It's still an attractor pattern, though.

Searching patterns also can be one that look like many things in nature (e.g, an Adams) but there's nothing specific you're trying to match. I'd never call it an attractor, but it's a good bet to put on when you're just fishing the waters. To me, a searching pattern is what you tie on when there's nothing obvious to use.

Sorry, I just see no difference.
You said: "an attractor is something that doesn't look like anything in nature". And then you say:"....for example, a Royal Coachman is a pretty good pattern to use during an ISO hatching fading light"

I'm not following.

You don't see a difference between a 'searching' and an 'attractor' pattern. Oh my goodness. I'd better realign my fly boxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Sorry, I just see no difference.
You said: "an attractor is something that doesn't look like anything in nature". And then you say:"....for example, a Royal Coachman is a pretty good pattern to use during an ISO hatching fading light"

I'm not following.

---

It doesn't look in the least like an iso. The only reason for using it is that I can see it in the fading light (and apparently so can the fish). The point is, I'm not "searching" with it; I know where the fish are.

How about this: an attractor is an attractor because of what it is (gaudy in some sense); a searching pattern is searching pattern because of how it's being used at the moment -- to find trout when they're not obviously rising. The former is intrinsic in the fly, it's an attractor just sitting in my fly box; the latter is functional; it doesn't become a searching fly until I tie it on and use it as such.

It's common to see a fly described as "it makes a good searching pattern"; I don't think I've ever seen a fly described as "it makes a good attractor," rather it's described as "it's an attractor."

(In linguistics, it's the difference between "sense" and "referent", but that's probably too few people here would be familiar with those terms to use them to shed light on the distinction I'm making here.)

Bob,

I think I understand your point and agree. Hey, when the surface is flat and no fish rising any dry, even a specific imitation, might be considered a 'searching' pattern at that particular rime, right? By the way, and this is not in response to anything you wrote, there are many renown fishers going back to the 19th century, who used the Royal Coachman - which is generally thought of as an 'attractor' - to imitate flying ants. Very successfully, according to the literature.

Exactly. (It was whatfly's point - I was only trying to explain it, although I agree with it.)

Yes, many attractors have specific situations where they do double duty as imitations. Renegades make good midge clusters; they also work well when certain dark caddis are on the water, but they're still generally thought of as attractors.

OTHOH, an elk hair caddis is designed to be an imitation of a caddis -- I don't think anybody calls it an attractor -- but for many people it's their goto searching pattern.

Thanks to all for their input.

I had also asked Blue Ribbon Flies if there is a difference, as I really respect their opinions.

Got this response from Bucky at Blue Ribbon Flies. He is one of their top tiers and sort of runs the shop there.
His answer is to my question whether there is any difference between an "attractor" and a "searching" pattern.

"Byron,

Craig is off for the fall, so I'll answer the question. There is no difference between the 2.

Bucky"

Sure, that has already been said. You did not ask if there is any difference between a "searching" pattern and an "attractor", however. As stated, all attractors are searching patterns, but that does not necessarily follow that all searching patterns are attractors.

Of course like so many concepts in this sport, the meaning is subjective. YMMV.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Bucky's is that there is "no difference" between the two. It is my opinion as well. IMHO.

Most attractor patterns resemble little in the forms of a hatch. They tend to work off of a hotspot of color or a particular movement or flash of material. A Royal Coachman, Turks, Patriot, bright humpies....etc. Many of them may have a down or upwing profile....but most flies do in general.

Most of what is referred to as a "search" pattern tends to be a fly that resembles a hatch on a particular water. Something that while not matching a current or non-existent hatch, is familiar to the fish and is a logical "guess" as to what may pound up fish. A Caddis, Stone, Haystack, Adams, Bivisibles or even a Wulff tied to match a local hatch in size and color.

Is it an approach?....yeah. More so than a tying style. And an attractor pattern can double as a search pattern. But generally the reverse wouldn't be thought in the same way.

I would say it is a little grey at best. I would not identify any one person as being the "defining" opinion...because there really is no exact answer.

One more thing. Look in tying manuals. There is almost always an "attractor" category. Which has nothing to do with how it is applied on the water. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Bucky's is that there is "no difference" between the two. It is my opinion as well. IMHO.

---

It is a good thing to be aware, though, that there is a difference of opinion, and to take that into account when trying to interpret what some else has said -- and how what we say might get interpreted. It seems we all agree on what "attractor" means, but "searching" not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It seems we all agree on what "attractor" means, but "searching" not so much.

---

Uh, not sure that's true. How about explaining what an 'Attractor' means. Does it mean that the fly catches the fishes eye and: a)looks like something edible but not exactly? b)angers the fish and results in a strike? c)has a recognizable shape and the fish strikes? d)the fish come to it and you have a 'refusal' (assuming you can see this happen)? Or, e)something else?
Where does one begin and the other leave off? Personally, I have a slight idea but at the same time I'd rather stick to the terms 'realistic', 'imitation', and 'impression'. Even then, except for the realistic which is fairly evident, it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the other two terms.

Well, when I fish an "attractor", I am hoping to induce a take when there might not be a hatch in progress. I am looking (searching) for a trout that is also "searching" for food and the fly attracts its attention and has enough general similarity to the natural food form to trigger a take.

A searching pattern is one that you use when you have no idea what to use....... A Woolly Booger is a good choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigmaster

A searching pattern is one that you use when you have no idea what to use....... A Woolly Booger is a good choice.

---

Are you therefore saying that if the river is very smooth, you cannot see any insects, and there are no actively rising trout or sipping trout, then whatever fly (regardless of catagory type some may place it in) you guess may be good and put on is a 'searching pattern'? Or, you see trout rising and they do not rise to your fly, (assume good presentations, etc.) even though it may be an 'immitation' of the hatching insect, so you put on something else. Is that something else, even though it may also be an 'immitation', also a 'searching pattern'?
Aren't we always searching for the pattern that will work and therefore all patterns are 'searching'. I guess I don't understand what that specific word means. What does it mean when used grammatically as a noun? When used as a verb?
Lastly, nice philosophical babble but who really gives a s--- what it's called? LOL.

Allan

Yup. You just figured out the ugly secret...they're all searching patterns...until something bites them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allan

Are you therefore saying that if the river is very smooth, you cannot see any insects, and there are no actively rising trout or sipping trout, then whatever fly (regardless of catagory type some may place it in) you guess may be good and put on is a 'searching pattern'? Or, you see trout rising and they do not rise to your fly, (assume good presentations, etc.) even though it may be an 'immitation' of the hatching insect, so you put on something else. Is that something else, even though it may also be an 'immitation', also a 'searching pattern'?
Aren't we always searching for the pattern that will work and therefore all patterns are 'searching'. I guess I don't understand what that specific word means. What does it mean when used grammatically as a noun? When used as a verb?
Lastly, nice philosophical babble but who really gives a s--- what it's called? LOL.

Allan

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allan

Are you therefore saying that if the river is very smooth, you cannot see any insects, and there are no actively rising trout or sipping trout, then whatever fly (regardless of catagory type some may place it in) you guess may be good and put on is a 'searching pattern'? Or, you see trout rising and they do not rise to your fly, (assume good presentations, etc.) even though it may be an 'immitation' of the hatching insect, so you put on something else. Is that something else, even though it may also be an 'immitation', also a 'searching pattern'?
Aren't we always searching for the pattern that will work and therefore all patterns are 'searching'. I guess I don't understand what that specific word means. What does it mean when used grammatically as a noun? When used as a verb?
Lastly, nice philosophical babble but who really gives a s--- what it's called? LOL.

Allan

---

Sounds a bit like you care?

Yes, I care when braggard types try and impose their high and mighty, although often erroneous, points of view by pointing out a few inconsistencies, falsehoods and dogmatic comments that have been expressed in this topic. If the shoe fits ... and all that jazz.

I always thought that a searching pattern was something that was a pattern that didn't represent a specific creature (i.e. insect, fish, etc) but was suggestive of a number of real "things" or "creatures" (i.e. small black insect, etc). This is different from a pattern that is meant to imitate a specific species of insect. The term searching was to indicate that, because it represented a wide variety of stuff, it was good to use if there wasn't a specific hatch going on.

In contrast, an attractor, was something I thought was not really supposed to represent a living creature, but rather, was something that was flashy and garish, and tried to get a strike out of aggression, or some such.

So, both are good to use when no specific hatch is going on, both can be used to "search" for fish, etc, with the difference (as I thought people used the terms) was in whether or not the pattern was meant to immitate a living thing of some sort.

Also, as with so many things associated with the jargon of fly fishing (or any activity), the terms have subtle differences of meaning depending upon locality.

- Jeff

Jeff,
If I copied this correctly, it is an interesting explanation of an attractor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhTAxTgjb0

Granted, everyone has their own opinion on things, but I found this interesting.

One of my favorite dry fly attractor/searching patterns:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psc4d0ee9d.jpg

Hi Byron,

Interesting. That's a use of attractor pattern I've not generally heard. Of course, I tend to think mostly of wet flies, and generally quill winged wets, where things like parmachene belle would be an attractor (yes, I know, some say it was modeled after a brook trout fin, but it's pretty impressionistic if it was), while a march brown would get called a searching pattern (a general representation of a bunch of insects; although again, I think it was originally a representation of a specific insect hatch). In the end, I think they are terms that have taken on a lot of local dialect, with no universally accepted definitions for either.

- Jeff

Absolutely!
When I first started fly fishing I never heard the term "searching pattern". I heard "Attractors" a lot. Now, it seems the term "searching pattern" has taken over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron haugh

Absolutely!
When I first started fly fishing I never heard the term "searching pattern". I heard "Attractors" a lot. Now, it seems the term "searching pattern" has taken over.

---

I wonder if it's regional? When did you start fly fishing? I've heard "searching pattern" since I started in the early 60's. It may also be a function of which magazines you read, and what the editor of those preferred.

Was skimming through the book, Quill Gordon by John McDonald last night. Gives a good overall history of fly fishing going back to Dame Juliana. I believe that I saw that the terms 'gaudy'/'fancy' were used and defined in relation to a type of fly because of the way it was dressed. They seem to be synonymous for 'attractor'. I think the description in McDonald's text was taken from the writing of Skues.
Maybe it would be interesting to see specific examples/references of how some authors actually use these terms in the context of their articles or books. Like 'Bob' wrote above, maybe its a matter of the regionalization of magazines and authors?
Just sayin