Troutnut Forum > Fly Fishing Discussion > Wooly buggers and what they're taken for
| Troutnut | December 6th, 2006, 3:21 pm | |
| Fairbanks, AK Posts: 1138 | I wrote a reply to something Gonzo posted about wooly buggers in the hellgrammite topic, but I didn't want to steer that discussion off course from the bugs so I'm starting a new one. Gonzo wrote: I also doubt that the Woolly Bugger is taken for a hellgrammite even though that was the idea behind Russ Blessing's original. I agree completely. The wooly bugger just plain lifelike. I think too many people are quick to assign some suggestive purpose to an attractor fly when the trout takes it. I think the principle at work with the wooly bugger and similar flies is that a trout cannot survive only by eating things it has recently been eating. It has to try new things. Certain characteristics can make a new thing seem more like food than debris, and the wooly bugger has several of those, so it's very successful. Speaking of wooly buggers, let me insert a shameless plug for my recently improved store design, which you can buy here: Now that that's out of my system, here's a question for those of you who enjoy etymology almost as much as entomology: Is it wooly or woolly? M-w.com lists both as valid variants. | |
| Jason Neuswanger The Troutnut | ||
|
These advertisements will disappear if you register. | ||
| GONZO | December 6th, 2006, 3:53 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | Good question. I used "Wooly" in my book. As I recall, I went back to the Barry Beck article that popularized Blessing's fly and found that spelling. However, a recent discussion prompted by the naming of a TU mailing address (Woolly Bugger, West Virginia) seems to have concluded that "Woolly" is correct. As you can see from my hellgrammite post, I'm bowing to convention (again). :) | |
| Martinlf | December 6th, 2006, 8:01 pm | |
| Palmyra PA Posts: 964 | If one is just talking about the English language in general, and not the use of the word "wooly" along with "bugger," by members the Salmoian Religion, I believe either spelling is correct, sort of like "grey" and "gray." Furthermore, even if a specific sect of Salmoians, such as the First Reformed Three Forks Church of the Holy Graylings spell the word "woolly," I believe that other Salmoians may spell it "wooly" without fear of skunkings or other divine retribution. I would like to see the treatise on the spelling "woolly" though, before I attempt an ex cathedra pronouncement. | |
| Louis Is it not an art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly? A trout! that is more sharp-sighted than any hawk . . . and more watchful and timorous than your high-mettled merlin is bold! --Izaak Walton The Compleat Angler | ||
| GONZO | December 6th, 2006, 11:20 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | Louis, I'll try to locate the "Woolly/Wooly" discussion I mentioned. It was probably in an issue of Trout magazine. I suppose that Russ Blessing would be the final arbiter of the "correct" spelling. Personally, I have no problem with either version. I do, however, prefer "sulphur" to "sulfur" and "grey" to "gray." But then I'm a bit of an Anglophile (and I know you are). Curiously, the Stackpole style sheet favored "gray" but allowed "sulphur" to pass. This was not nearly as perplexing as the treatment of the common names of insects and fly patterns--but that's "inside baseball." Returning to the imitative associations of the Bugger, I frequently see it referred to as a leech imitation. Both the appearance and the movement seem distinctly "unleechlike" to me. When a large white Bugger is rapidly stripped through a school of alewives, frenzied trout probably do take it for that prey, but that is the only instance of crude imitation that comes easily to mind. | |
| Martinlf | December 7th, 2006, 9:40 am | |
| Palmyra PA Posts: 964 | Gonzo, I'll have to differ slightly with you on this matter, I fear. Though Russ as the originator may be paid some homage, as far as the idea of correctness goes, usage seems to vary enough (witness Jason's shirts, for example, or countless references and posts on the net) to make either spelling pass muster. One thing, I forgot to clarify, though, in the Latin pronunciation thread. Frequent usage may not always be sufficient to determine acceptable alternatives, and here's where I get a little prescriptive. I often see the spelling wolly. Now that's plainly wrong, an excommunicatable offense, and as for "booger"--that's just offensive. | |
| Louis Is it not an art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly? A trout! that is more sharp-sighted than any hawk . . . and more watchful and timorous than your high-mettled merlin is bold! --Izaak Walton The Compleat Angler | ||
| DMM | December 7th, 2006, 11:30 am | |
| Posts: 141 | I don't know about being offended, but if I had a woolly booger I think I'd be a little worried... | |
| David | ||
| Martinlf | December 7th, 2006, 1:13 pm | |
| Palmyra PA Posts: 964 | Good one, David :). | |
| Louis Is it not an art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly? A trout! that is more sharp-sighted than any hawk . . . and more watchful and timorous than your high-mettled merlin is bold! --Izaak Walton The Compleat Angler | ||
| GONZO | December 7th, 2006, 2:13 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | David--I believe that woolly boogers are fairly common in lint-filled environs, and should not be the cause of great concern. It's the rubber-legged or cone-headed varieties that are most alarming. Prompt medical attention is recommended, although such an advanced stage of "woollyboogeritis" (also spelled "woolyboogeritis") may be incurable. :) | |
| JAD | December 8th, 2006, 3:48 pm | |
| Butler--- Western Pa Posts: 164 | I want you guys to know, I'm writing all this down for future reference. With all this information and a dollar I can get a cup of coffee. Maybe:) Jad | |
| "Nature is pleased with simplicity" Newton | ||
| GONZO | December 8th, 2006, 10:10 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | Hi John, Either you're drinking that lousy fast-food coffee, or you're placing way too high a value on this "information." :) | |
| Troutnut | December 9th, 2006, 2:07 am | |
| Fairbanks, AK Posts: 1138 | I don't know, I'd trade good cup of coffee for a booger joke any day... then again, I don't like coffee. | |
| Jason Neuswanger The Troutnut | ||
| GONZO | December 9th, 2006, 3:46 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | OK. How do you make a handkerchief dance? ....Jason, you owe me a cup of Starbucks when you visit the Letort next season. :) PS--You didn't say it had to be a good booger joke--or boogie joke, in this case. | |
| Brett | December 26th, 2006, 10:49 am | |
| Martinsburg, WV Posts: 15 | More thoughts on wooly (woolly) buggers: I think there are often multiple elements in a fly that can be generally suggestive of food to trout, be that the undulating motion of a long marabou tail, the light-refracting impressionism of hackle or the general silhouette. It is when several of those elements come together in a way that may be perceived as more or less coherent to a variety of foods that we come up with those "winner flies." Here is one of my favorite dressings for the wooly bugger and what I feel are the attractive qualities: Size: #8 Mustad 79580 or Tiemco 5263 (I feel this size for nymphs or streamers puts a fly in the range of foodstuffs like hellgrammites, large damselfly nymphs, aquatic leeches, larger stoneflies, madtoms, darters and even small salamanders) Tail: Black marabou tied a bit longer than shank length, sparse (I think the undulating and flowing properties of marabou may be reminiscent of the body movements of nymphs moving through water or small baitfish when in current or stripped.) Body: Black hackle over peacock herl (I find the metallic sheen of peacock herl to be very suggestive of the sheen I see on many insects -think beetles - as well as the sheen of fish scales - think darters. The sparse hackle can suggest leg movement, fin movement or merely serve to break-up the outline of the fly.) When these qualities are combined, it's obvious that fish can see a number of these qualities at once and may further be triggered to strike as their food "search image" is met by the addition of appropriate action ie: stripping for a darter/madtom presentation or dead-drifted for a nymph presentation. Thus, I may try several different presentations in one cast to see if I can match the movement the fish may be looking for. Thus, I think of such flies as double-duty or multiple-duty imitations. Another good double duty fly is as follows: Kicker Prince: This is a bead-head Prince nymph in size 8 with a yellow or green collar and a set of black rubber legs on each side. When dead-drifted this can be a good imitation of a dislodged stonefly nymph or a dislodged "cased caddis" peeking out of it's tubular case. (This fly was developed on the Cumberland River in Kentucky by guide, Gerald McDaniel.) I'm sure GONZO will now pronounce me guilty of over-analysis, which I surely am. But, this mode of thinking allows me to come up with other combinations that may be good matches for the trout's "search images." | |
| Brett Novice entomologist, fly-tyer and photographer | ||
| Martinlf | December 26th, 2006, 12:50 pm | |
| Palmyra PA Posts: 964 | Brett, thanks for the musings on buggers and for the patterns. I'll let Gonzo speak for himself when he gets back from Christmas vacation, but I will say that if he finds you guilty of "over-analysis" it will be a little like the pot calling the kettle black. :) And he'll know I'm kidding on this, because if what you and he do is "over-analysis," I'm doubly guilty. | |
| Louis Is it not an art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly? A trout! that is more sharp-sighted than any hawk . . . and more watchful and timorous than your high-mettled merlin is bold! --Izaak Walton The Compleat Angler | ||
| GONZO | December 26th, 2006, 6:54 pm | |
| "Bear Swamp," PA Posts: 1002 | Brett, Louis is certainly right that I would be the last person to accuse you of "over-analysis." Actually, I think we are often guilty of "under-analysis" when we casually accept notions about the things that popular flies are said to imitate. Personally, I find it useful to think of a trout's prey as typically fitting into three broad and somewhat indefinite categories--unfamiliar potential prey, familiar abundant prey, and temporarily superabundant prey. The first category covers things that a trout in a general feeding mode is usually willing to sample. Most of the time, flies that we label as "generic," "attractive," or "suggestive" fall into this category. This group includes some of the most famous, versatile, and broadly successful flies ever devised. I would certainly include flies like the Wooly Bugger and Royal Wulff in this category. (Most of the time.) The second category includes prey items that the trout encounters on a regular basis. Flies in this category provoke specific recognition by the trout, even though this may not be an exclusive focus. Fairly accurate imitations of prey items like scuds, cressbugs, midge and caddisfly larvae, minnows, aquatic earthworms, etc. fit into this group. These are specifically imitative "searching" flies, and their value when compared to the more broadly suggestive flies in the first category depends upon the relative abundance of a prey form. This can be specific to a particular stream or (especially) to concentrations around a particular trout's lie. On food-poor streams, the significance of this category is often diminished, and "attractive" or "drawing" qualities of first category flies may provide an edge. The "superabundant" category includes specific imitations of heavy hatches or of any other prey that temporarily overwhelms other food forms in abundance. This can be due to emergence or egg-laying activity, or due to such things as concentrated behavioral drift or seasonal migrations. Most of our "hatch-matching" efforts are (or should be) focused on these prey items. Not every hatch provides sufficient quantities to warrant this specific attention from the angler or the trout. But, to me, these opportunities are among the most fascinating (and often, the most productive) times to be fly fishing for trout. To be sure, some flies can move freely among the different categories at times, and what fools one trout (even within a particular category) won't necessarily fool another. I do think, however, that keeping these broad categories in mind can help to make sense of situations astream and can be an aid to more effective fly selection. | |
New features!
