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?
… not refering back to the F Bug, but to the original question - and I do prefer to call this a “finding” pattern.
The Pine Squirrel Cheater flat out finds trout, and many other species based on feedback from a number of people around the country, both in moving water and still water.
I fish this pattern on a Class II full sinking line. I usually present it across and down and let it swing across the current using short, regular strips to add some movement. I can cover a lot of water using this approach and often use it on new water to get an idea where the fishies can be found.
This fly has taken many of the larger specimens of the trouts I find in this neck of the woods - brookies, browns, bows, cutts, cuttbows and …
… bull trout, this one just a couple days ago.
Headed out on a three day 650 mile road trip to fish a high mountain lake and several cricks with nothing but the PSCs in the pic. Expect to do some interesting “finding” along the way, and add another species of trout to the PSC’s catch list.
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.
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.
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”
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
