controversial wooly buggers

[Chappy]

I was reading an article about the wooly bugger being a contoversial fly to fly fishing purists saying that the bugger was in the same class as night crawlers. I have had great success on this fly in fact the first fish I caught on the fly was a 16" brown on the Farmington river with an olive wooly bugger. That fly single handedly got me hooked on fly fishing and fly tying, and for that I will always pay it homage. To this day I keep a seperate fly box devoted to the almighty wooly bugger. I have caught big fish to the most delicate little brookies on this fly( there is something about a 6" brookie with a mouth full of marabou ya gotta love). I don't think that a fly's success should deem it as meat. I hope this is not a touchy subject for you guys I just was curious to hear some opinions on this subject.

[Z Fisher]

There are factions and fanatics in every sport. Fly fishing is no different.

I try and ignore anyone who doesn't like how I practice my sport. I've rarely run up against a fanatic in fly fishing but I've seen them from a distance, noted their species, and avoided them.

I fish in the manner that I do because I like to fish that way. If you like to fish differently, so be it. I consider the wooly bugger a fine fly. It mimics a variety of underwater creatures and catches trout. 'Nuff said.

I suggest that you too fish in a manner that you find enjoyable and ignore anyone who say's "You're not 'fly fishing" unless you're doing X!", unless of course, you're looking to be a purist. :)

This whole notion of a pure art is strange to me. If by pure one means that you should do it the way it was done when the sport was invented then even bamboo rods become too radical an invention. At it's logical conclusion this line of reasoning says we're all using ash saplings with a horsehair line swinging wet flies in the current. Now wouldn't that be fun.

That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, including me.

[lar42]

Well said indeed, Z Fisher! The Wooly Bugger is my favorite fly. Probably because it is the one I catch the most fish on! :wink: :)

I, too, like to practice my art the way I want and if someone else doesn't like it then they can stay away from me and it won't offend them! :) Mainly, becuase they won't see it! :D

I find it rather funny that people try and fit others into a certain category and cannot see outside of their shortened vision range. How else would Fly Fishing have evolved into the sport it is today if the real purists had never tried anything new? Z Fisher was right on with his statements.

Now, enough said, I'm going fishing and you can bet the very first thing I use will be a Wooly Bugger! :wink: :D

[Chappy]

Thanx guys I myself may have to go out and throw some wooly candy to the trout on the Westfield tonight.

[Eider]

thats my go-to fly when all else goes south. The Wooly Bugger is tops in my box followed closely by a hornburg and a hare's ear.

[Housy Dave]

I doubt there's anyone on this site that would frown upon using wooly buggers.

Just curious, can you remember where this article was or what magazine it was in? It's possible that the writer was just trying to create a stir and make a bit of a name for himself. Things like this are often taken out of context just to generate a little popularity.

I've never come across anyone, or heard of anyone, that would make such a ridiculous claim.

[Chappy]

I had heard about purists that considered woolly buggers to be cheating and did a liitle research on the web.

[The Patriot]

Z Fisher nailed it..... there are all sorts of so called "purists" in every discipline. They're all full o' beans in my personal opinion. :wink:

I would dare to call Housy Dave a nymphing purist.... :P He can't tell one dry fly from the next, or identify a hatch to save his life, but he can pound up fish on nymphs like no body's business, all day long, from sun up to sun down..... ( I freakin' hate fishing with him when he does that.... especially when I can't get a tap.... :lol: )

I've heard a few of my dry fly fishing buddies call nymphing "worm fishing" and poo poo it..... but the real reason for that is that they actually suck at nymphing. I suck at it too, but at least I admit it, and keep trying to learn, rather than eschew it as bait fishing.

There was a thread on another board from the Catskills wherein the guys debated the relative merits of using egg patterns. It was similarly derided by some so called purists who felt that a "fly" had to imitate some sort of insect, period, or it was not a "fly". They only begrudgingly allowed for streamers as bait fish imitations. One guy even rationalized that a true "fly" had to imitate a living food source occuring naturally in the stream, but somehow managed to exclude eggs in that category. Pretty twisted logic if you ask me..... :roll:

They also debated "when does a fly become a lure"..... what a waste of time....

I don't fish wooly buggers or any streamers for that matter as much as I should, but I have caught fish on them, and I certainly don't look down my nose on that type of fishing. (I got a nice brown yesterday morning in Church Pool on a streamer, biggest stream trout I ever got on a streamer, it was over 16, maybe 18 inches.) Flyrodder is as good a streamer fisherman as they come, and I admire him for it. Like I said once before, if I could fish streamers half as well as Flyrodder, and nymphs half as good as Dave, I'd be a half an angler.... :D

I prefer fishing dries because that's what I'm good at, it's the easiest way for me to catch fish.... not because I'm some sort of purist dry fly snob, who equates buggers, streamers, and nymphs to fishing bait. The plain and simple truth is that I suck at subsurface fishing.

But the one thing I will say is that Dave's little white jig/buggit thingies that he's been using this season, and that he's infected a few of our friends with, are not flies, they're LURES! :P :wink: :D

(Just bustin' ya Dave! It's all good!)

In my opinion, it comes down to two things: First, to each his own. If you like nymphing, (you sick, perverted individual :P ) then fish nymphs. If you like streamers, fish streamers. If dry fly fishing is your thing, go for it!

Second, in my own estimation, in order to really be a "Complete Angler", you should try to achieve at least some proficiency in all three areas. There are times when my dry flies won't do me a lick o' good..... I might as well mow the lawn, or sit on the bank and drink beer..... there are times when dries kick serious butt.... the more varied your skills, the more fun you can have fishing.....

The only thing that matters is wether or not you're having fun.... even catching fish can be optional.....

but it helps..... :lol:

[h.ridley]

:D You know what they say about opinions, everyone has one. But to say wooleybuggers are not a reasonable fly is rediculous. They are made with the same materials as all other flies. Each individual can adjust the pattern to his or her liking. I've even seen them with rubber legs(sick). But they catch fish as well or better than practically any other fly under most conditions. Perhaps that is why some people complain about them.

And another thing to say is they work not just here but everywhere you can fish for trout and other species. The same exact pattern will work on the Farmington, and Henrys fork, and Madison, and Snake,ect. ect. ect.. I personally would not leave to fish anywhere without them. Now don't get me wrong. I would drive many extra miles to get to dry fly fishing. But the very first underwater fly I go to is the exulted Wooleybugger. And if they are taken off the market, I will still tie them for the underground movement, free of charge of course. FREE THE WOOLEYBUGGER.
hOWIE

Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. W.S.

[TonyM]

Now, if we really want to pursue the purist perspective, I understand the latest craze in purist-dom is to clip off the hook point on your flies .... so that victory is just getting the fish to grab the fly -- you save the poor animal from a pain experience and you save all the time and effort playing and releasing. Something like the indian coup.

I've done this a few times, but only by accident after I lost the hook point on a rock. I'm not there yet.

Tony M

[Z Fisher]

Of all the things I'd be willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of being a purist (which isn't happening anytime soon) the fish in the hand would be the absolute last thing to go. Once you take away the fish in the hand, you might as well just pick up a pair of binoculars and go fish watching.

[Chappy]

I agree with everyone 100%. Like I said it was the single fly that hooked my first trout on the fly and me as well. The ease at which it can be fished (virtually no wrong way) makes it encouraging to a newbie such as myself because it gives me a good deal of practice in casting, and fighting and landing fish which is essential to my development as a fly fisherman. Putting frowns on those who pedestalize (not sure if that is a real word but it should be) themselves will not make my decision any more difficult to throw on the ol' green and ugly if I deem it necessary. Last night I went down to the Westfield to fish a few buggers in to this deep stretch. I made my first cast and out of the woods walks this bait fisherman maybe 50' away. Normally I would move if an obstinant person neglects to give me space but this time I wanted to try something. I remained right were I was and it wasn't long before I hooked into my first trout a 16" bow. The guy kinda looked at me like I had a tarpon on thinking my rod had the striper fighting strength like his.
I landed the fish took a picture let him go. This was the big suprise to this guy. The fact that I let it go on a non c&r section. Two more rainbows later another 16" and a 10" this guy is confused checking the bells on his rod tip to see if they would still ring. Then I caught 2 little smallmouth all within relative proximity of this fellow all on the same fly. This gent had one pole with the bells and another casting spoons and my little size 12 green bead head was tearing him up. I don't normally care about competing or the like but his encroachment had me wanting battle the bugger against his bait. Now I'm a little off topic and not trying bash bait fisher people or anything (I fished bait for years) just wanted have some fun with the lad. Anyway I love the woolly bugger maybe a tattoo will prove it. lol :wink:

[cirrus]

I went out today and bought some woolly bugger's....give them a try as they sound good for my wife(and me!) to fish with as she's a beginner at fly fishing.

[Z Fisher]

3weight: wherein the guys debated the relative merits of using egg patterns. It was similarly derided by some so called purists who felt that a "fly" had to imitate some sort of insect, period, or it was not a "fly".

I was on a TU trip out in Pennsylvania earlier this year. It's a great bunch of guys and the trip was fantastic.

The first day we fished was rainy and a bit crappy. Fishing was slow. So the guide we were with pulled out his "candy box" and asked if folks wanted to tie on an egg pattern above their droppers as an attractor. I'd never done it before so I gave it a shot and had some limited success.

Boy, did I get some looks from some of the folks streamside. It was as if I had tied on a worm. :D Now most of that response was just good-natured ribbing from the guys but I was amused by the response I got from tying on such a simple FLY.

[hookandhackle]

Time to break out the tweed jacket, feathered hat and pipe. The purist isn't always best at catching fish. Selecting the right fly be it a streamer, bugger, wet, nymph or dry is what makes the hunt fun and enjoyable.


I've knowingly fished with out a fly and just casted in the water mindlessly because it's relaxing. I wonder what the purists or even normal folks would say about that?

[The Patriot]

Now, if we really want to pursue the purist perspective, I understand the latest craze in purist-dom is to clip off the hook point on your flies .... so that victory is just getting the fish to grab the fly -- you save the poor animal from a pain experience and you save all the time and effort playing and releasing. Something like the indian coup.

I've done this a few times, but only by accident after I lost the hook point on a rock. I'm not there yet.

Tony M


At the rate that I'm failing to land fish lately, I might as well do that..... :lol:

There certainly is a great deal of satisfaction in just getting the fish to eat your fly, and actually landing it and manually removing the hook can at times be a formality, particularly with smaller fish. But the bringing the fish to hand to admire it before slipping it back into the stream is to me an essential part of the experience. So I must again whole heartedly agree with Z Fisher. You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.... and a fine judge of cheap scotch! :lol:

[Chappy]

maybe I'll start a new trend in widdling my hooks from wood so purists could say they float too much!

[Z Fisher]

hookandhackle: I've knowingly fished with out a fly and just casted in the water mindlessly because it's relaxing. I wonder what the purists or even normal folks would say about that?

:shock:

What ever floats your boat!

Though us normal folks are going to keep an eye on you. :wink:

[flyrodder]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am closer to a purist than any of those Orvis totin' snobs who only fish dries. If being a purist is defined as doing things the way they were done in the past, then I am there. Early fly fishing was primarily wet flies and bucktail streamers. Some of the patterns I fish are over 100 years old, and people today rarely use them, but they are effective. I like the old patterns because back in the day people actually fished for food and they needed patterns that would be productive.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the idea of the "dry fly purist" evolved in the 1950's in the Catskills, but I might be wrong about that.

Some of my favorites:

Black Ghost-1927
Warden's Worry-1930
Professor-circa early 1800's
soft hackle flies (Partridge and Orange, etc..)-used as early as the 15th century-now that's old school!!!
Royal Coachman Wet-1878
Parmacheene Belle-1878
Shushan Postmaster-1953

I also use a lot of the old salmon wets like the Blue Charm ,Jock Scott,Undertaker,Hairy Mary,etc... I think these patterns date back to the 1800's.

[Z Fisher]

Yes, it sounds like you're more of a purist than anyone I've met. And if you're okay that I'm not then you and I could enjoy a day on the water together.

I think the whole point of this thread was that there are some who take the purist road and look down upon us who leave that road less traveled.

I'd love to see some of the patterns that you fish. Perhaps you could post some pics in the gallery.

I'm also interested in doing some more wet fly fishing though I'm usually too "in the zone" to get out of my usual ruts. I've got about twenty wet flys in my box that have only been used once or twice.