Ty Flyer 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2015 America Angler had a recent article about this. It basically said an attractor pattern is used as a searching fly when there is no apparent hatch, as it appeals to a fish's curiosity. Kirk, another example of an impressionistic fly would be the X-Stimulator. With it's large wing it can represent a stone fly, or with its rubber legs it imitates a hopper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilverCreek 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2015 America Angler had a recent article about this. It basically said an attractor pattern is used as a searching fly when there is no apparent hatch, as it appeals to a fish's curiosity. I would say that my definition of a searching pattern is not neccessarily an attractor although it certainly can be. I would say that "appealing to a fish's curiosity" is what an attractor does; and "appealing to a fish's curiosity" does not completley define a searching pattern. I think the hallmark of a searching pattern is that it covers a lot of water and/or draws fish from a distance. Covering a lot of water is important since you want a lot of fish to see the fly. Drawing fish from a distance with either motion or sound is also important for the same reason. When there is not a hatch and you are employing the "searching" tactic, you want to cover ("search") as much water as possible. So I think of wooly buggers, Gapen's Muddler Minnow, etc that put out sound waves and move through a lot of water as searching patterns. When you are reading water and casting a Royal Wulff to fishing lies, you are using it as an attractor fly and not as a searching pattern. If there is no difference between an attractor pattern and a searching pattern, why even create a category of flies that are searching patterns. Just call all of them attractors. My definiton is based on how a pattern is used and not on what fly category it is in. That is my opionion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bellevue.chartreuse.trout 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 Am so glad they trigger strikes too - being 'searcher' or 'attractor'! I remember as a kid of 12 or 13 'casting' (more like lobbing) a Royal Coachman and letting the stream direct the fly downstream - right over a log edge where I caught a few nice trout and 'Fall' fish on Cross-fork Creek in Northern PA. Can still see those fish running out from behind the log and snatching the fly. God that was exciting! I was so proud to show my Father and those that where at this pavilion some 100 yards from where I was fishing. BCT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kirk Dietrich 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 Good answers Silver and Ty. I fish warm and saltwater and with these categories, I've got to say I fish most patterns as searchers and a number of the searchers are also attractor patterns, unless I'm sight casting to redfish. Most warmwater is done by blind casting so covering a lot of water is important to me even if I'm throwing to cover. But just to throw a monkey wrench into things, I usually fish baitfish type flies either poppers, divers and streamers including wooly buggars and being tied to look like baitfish, they would be imitative but by the nature of injured baitfish that draw attention they usually move kind of erratic with bursts of livelyness, which allows a quicker retrieve allowing to search more water. If that makes sense. Then sometimes, I do to those same shaped/style flies painted in Fire Tiger, which I've got to believe would be an attractor... Damn, I'm confusing myself! Glad I don't have to take a test on this. Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bellevue.chartreuse.trout 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 Attractors ..................Imitators Maybe some lean more toward attractors but exhibit some characteristics of attraction, and - vice versa? BCT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kirk Dietrich 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 Hahahaha BCT, I love the Grey Area visual! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilverCreek 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 This is way off topic but as a radiologist, I love that gray scale. It demonstrates Mach Bands. Look at the first image below. At the junction of each of the gray bands, you will see a thin whiter line above and a thin darker grey where the two meet. These are Mach Bands. The second animations demonstrates that when the edges are not abutting each other, the Mach Bands disappear; and they reappear when they come together. Mach Bands allow humans to better detect the faint edges that define where one object starts and another object ends. They are a biological adaptation of our vision which gave humans an advantage as hunters to see prey and to avoid being hunted. Camouflage works by breaking up edges so the Mach Bands are not as obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_bands Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bellevue.chartreuse.trout 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2015 Kirk .... just thought that would provide a visual representation of what we are discussing (of sorts). Silver - man, I never really realized that effect until you pointed it out! If they are touching, you get a 'lighter' effect above (or in my greyscale left), and a darker below (or right). Almost like an optical illusion sort of appearance. Interesting observation/phenomenon. BCT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites