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.
Last edited by Byron haugh; 09-21-2013 at 04:23 AM.
You don't see a difference between a 'searching' and an 'attractor' pattern. Oh my goodness. I'd better realign my fly boxes.
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.Originally Posted by Byron haugh
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.)
Last edited by redietz; 09-21-2013 at 02:10 PM.
Bob
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.
Bob
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote