Jump to content
Fly Tying
Lance Kekel

Realistic flies vs. "buggy"

Excluding attractor patterns like Royal coachmans and humpys, which do you prefer to fish with, realistic or "Buggy"?  

235 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

One distinction I do like to make is that buggy is good, but it's not the same thing as sloppy. It may be hard for the untrained eye to tell a buggy fly from a sloppy fly, but a good buggy fly is every bit as imitative as bench vise eyecandy--it's just meant to look and move realistically underwater instead of in the air. Attention to detail can be just as relevant in a buggy fly as in a display fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wink.gif I have to agree with Jason and will add the old adage that a well Presented fly is better than a well tied fly if not presented well! I voted buggy for the aforementioned reasons. If you are trying to match the hatch in or on the film I believe proportion and profile are the most important factors for success. No matter what, if ya line 'em they're done!

 

A.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In my past experiences, a meaty bug will out-fish the hatch. The same goes for higher/stained water. I'm a firm believer in making your offering stand out a little, sometimes by size, profile or by adding a little color

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

buggy! This thread finaaly clears up my confusion about why the Kaufman Stone has been so popular over the years. You know the one that's just biots, ribbing, wingcases and picked out dubbing? I could never figure out why this worked (much to my shame) but now I can't wait to tie a few.

 

 

Though I greatly enjoy tying realistic Damsel, Dragon and Stonefly nymphs. Helgrammites too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Buggy, but I think the term I'd use is impressionistic. The hex pattern I use is definately not a realistic tie. In fact when I show it to people they kind of give me "the look". However Dan Catau designed this fly over 25 years ago and it is still one of the best producing fly's on Michigan's hex hatch. It has large white calf tail wings that I can see in very low light, the body is yellow and does not look "buggy" at all, but when you add a little palmered hackle and thorax it just works. Dan says that it creates the correct profile and silhouette in the surface film.

All I know is that when the bugs are coming off it's rare to make a drift and not get bit on almost every cast. Even when the hexes are coming off in daylight (it does happen occasionally) it still gets bit even with it's goofy look.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buggy, buggy buggy, and I agree with Sawcat about 'impressionistic'.

I can't count the number of times I've perfectly drifted a nicely tied dry fly over fine looking water, getting no hits, only to have trout smash it when I purposely pulled it under. In fact some of my best fish have been caught this way !

Imagine what the wings and hackle on a dry look like submerged, that's the way I want my flies to look.

One of my fav's right now is the Partridge & Yellow. I used it all summer, and it's as buggy as they come. Nothing but a small dubbed body and soft hackle askew everywhere. Umm, umm good !

tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my go to flies "subsurface" is wood duck for the tail and a mix of 4 different shades of dubbing, then brushed out with a toothbrush, so I would go with buggy. I also have some messy surface emergers that work really well also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not how they look in the vice. It's all about what they look like in the water. I'm for buggy. buggy, BUGGY, quick to tie guide style flies. It didn't really click until I saw a photo Don Moore put up at a presentation, of a simple soft hackle fly before it hit the water, compared to how it looked after it was wet and set beside a mayfly nymph. That is when the art of fly tying became clear to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Steelie said, but 95% of the flies I fish are not realistic, mostly simple buggers and caddis, but… Looking at this topic title, it didn’t ask why you prefer the choice of buggy or realistic, was the question only related to the flies you tye for fishing? When my fishing boxes run thin I sit and crank out dozens to refill them, but what to do after that? I enjoy sitting at my vise, experimenting, playing, and basically just having fun, try to let any pent up artistic juices flow. My hook is my canvas.. I put some flies in my display by my tying desk, give others to friends and recently found a new value. Wait till you see the new Hardy advertisements, my red spider is on it’s way back from a photo shoot in England, basically because I didn’t want to sell it to them, instead let them use it for free. Best part is next week I will be receiving my brand new Hardy Angel 7/8 fly reel, Hardy is sending me as a thank you. So, looking back at this topic title, I truly have to say, I like both and don’t have a preference. This is the first time I’ve mention the Hardy thing in public.

 

Cheers,

 

Graham

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...