Realistic flies vs. "buggy"

[Lance Kekel 0]

The comments about "tying one for show" in the post for OSD's nicely tied Quill Gordon got me thinking about the old debates of fishing buggy flies vs realistic flies. With this being a fly tying site and having observed lots of VERY realistic flies AND "buggy" flies in our collections I wondered what everyones prefernce is and does their tying preference match their fishing preference?

 

 

Myself I tend to lean a little more towards the realistic on dries but buggy for everything else, especially my nymphs. I just really enjoy trying to tie the dries that way. Whenever I can tie a bunch of very tight thin cleanly dubbed body it always seams to make me feel really good.

 

Kinda weird, I know!! My wife's accepted that about me you guys can too!!

[Guest]

Buggy all the way! Doesn't seem to matter what I tie I always try to add a little something to the pattern that gives it that buggy look.

[skeet3t 0]

Both ways! Depends what mood I'm in- adventurous, I'll modify a pattern. If I'm in a "ho-hum" mood, I'll tie the standard accepted pattern. I'll also tie a pattern different ways and experiment. That's the fun of tying- so many ways to get to the same place.

[Steeldrifter 0]

I use both even though I think the realistic flies catch more fisherman than fish.

 

SD

[Graham 0]

I like to fish quick to tie buggy looking flies whenever they are productive at catching fish. Some of the Sierra waters get pounded pretty hard and the fish get wise to many store bought flies and this is why I started fishing with more realistic patterns. I have a drawer with many dozens of glass vials full of bug embalming fluid and bugs. Each vial has a number that I track in a database of Sierra streams and lakes, with weather conditions, date, water level, flow rates, etc. So if I want to fish the E. Walker in the second week of June I have a pretty good idea of the aquatic insects the trout will be feeding on, including species, size, color, stage of development. I like to have these vials in front of me when I’m tying for that trip. I have found that my fish catching success has benefited by having more realistic patterns with me. I often fish from dawn till dusk and the realistic flies are most often fished in the middle of the day when the sun is on the water. Keeping a logbook in my vest and taking notes to be entered into my computer later has helped me a lot. I tie flies to catch fish. I fly fish because it has proved far more effective than spin fishing with worms and eggs and I did a lot of that, years ago. I'll fish a Hare's ear or PT whenever possible.

[SDHflyfisher 0]

i try to use more realistic looking dries and buggy nymphs and wets

[fishyfranky 0]

I'm a fan of Fish Eye for the Fly Guy! If its not meant to catch fish, then its an earing for Sheena Easton!

 

ps, what about streamers?

[Guest]

My best "fishin' flys" wouldn't impress anyone. And certainly do not show-off my abilitys at the vice.

[Graham 0]

Hi Fishinwrench, I agree about the "fishin flys". I learned a few years ago that the best fly for catching the first week of April, last run, chrome steelies running up Oak Orchard creek is a size 16 hook with peacock herl, no legs, winds, eyes, just herl. Nothing worked better, but thay had to be fished on 4lb flouro tippet.

[Becky 0]

Hi Fellas,

 

I'm new to this forum and thought I would put my 2 cents in.

 

It's been mine and my husbands opinions for years that trout are less wary and therefore less picky below the surface and by the same token more wary at or just below the surface. It appeared to us that to improve our fishing we needed more realistic dry flies.

 

Over the years we feel that we were right. So much so we fish dries more than anything else.

 

Since your polls don't have a place for realistic dry flies only, I feel my vote doesn't count.

[pacres 0]

Buggy buggy buggy.

 

 

[JasonN 0]

I think they're the same thing. That is, buggy flies tend to be the ones that look realistic underwater.

 

Imitating the motion and the general feel of the way the insect looks to the trout is more important than looking good at the vice. So I think that bugginess is just a form of realism.

 

That said, I do like to try to match specific insects quite realistically, rather than just throwing a pile of generally buggy features onto some random fly. That's just personal preference. Any good imitative fly has to look buggy if it's meant to be fished.

[Dble Haul 0]

QUOTE (JasonN @ Nov 28 2004, 01:34 PM)

I think they're the same thing. That is, buggy flies tend to be the ones that look realistic underwater.

Bingo.

[Pujic 0]

I agree with Graham. Buggy flies are generally more productive in my experiences, unless I am fishing waters which recieve high angling pressure of all sorts. In those cases, having a fly more realistically representing the size and shape of a natrual food source seems to out produce. Remember that size and shape should be more important factors when discussing realistic patterns as there seems to be a fairly wide color variance, even in real life, between specimens of the same species. Dave Whitlock's Guide to Aquatic Trout Foods is a great book if anyone is interested.

 

 

[Guest]

Buggy all the way. I try not to get to exact. I like the general appearance, with lots of movement (depending on the pattern being tied). Even my baitfish patterns aren't too exacting. I like the profile and colors that match. But not like an exact duplicate.