In my new 3/4 acre pond my neighbor and I placed over 50 cement blocks (see photo). We then got into a discussion about the merits of fish habitat. I was of the opinion that it would serve only to concentrate the fish. He thought that it would help produce more and bigger fish. Can someone here clarify the issue? Perhaps structure works to do all three? Is fish habitat the same as structure? By the way, I plan to stock the pond with LMB, BG, and YP (yellow perch). Thanks to any and all who offer their opinion.

I think you will find most of us agree that fish habitat can improve your fishery many different ways, far more than just congregating fish to catch them.

In my opinion,habitat,structure,cover,attractors all work much the same way and are synonomous. All creatures feel vulnerable when out in the open. Habitat provides refuge for young fry to hide and grow without being eaten. It also provides ambush spots for fish to hunt around.

If a group of structure holds small forage fish that are hiding, the predators gather to try to eat them. That is why the word attractor has been used for so long. By providing cover for some fish to hide and grow, your fishery can grow more larger fish eating the larger forage available. It is important to provide habitat from the shallow 1-3 foot range out to the deeper drops in a somewhat continuous line. If the young fry hiding in the shallows have to swim all the way out to 8-10 feet to find the next form of habitat, they often get eaten on the way.

I like your cinder blocks and will fish well. I would recommend some shallow cover as well for your new stocked fish to begin to hide from the bass. Good luck and send the pics along!

Wow, I love that brick idea! Very cool and I'd imagine would definitely hold fish.

Thanks Peepaw! Larger fish are better! Although it's hard to see it here, those blocks run from the deeper end to near the shallow bank. I was sort of thinking the same thing as you, that it would provide a kind of a continuous migration route from deep to shallow for both the predators and prey. It's amazing how those blocks looked so plentiful in the pickup truck, but in the lake they look so meager. I need to get some more!

Omaha, I have no idea what structure fish favor the most. I'm sure glad someone else here thinks it's a good idea. Thanks!

If the pond isn't aerated, and you want the fish to use the cover during the summer, is all of it in shallow enough water so it's above the thermocline? If the pond is aerated, then nevermind.

thats a good starting point. I prefer brush piles as cover. You really want something that is thick enough that your small fish can go inside but your predator fish cannot. The thicker the better.
If you plan on feeding your fish I would put some brush around the area you plan to feed and then some gravel outside of that (preferably the west bank, depending on prevailing winds) if you can do that you can provide everything that bluegill need to be productive in one area.
They hide in the brush, come out to eat, come out to spawn, then back to the brush. You can literally create a bluegill factory and grow too many bluegill for them to all fit in the brush piles, then it's off to be eaten by your bass.
In my opinion there is a difference between Structure and Habitat. Structure provides an ambush point. Habitat provide refuge.
my .02

In MrSandman's northern location, with the spectre of BG overpopulation ever looming, how much structure would be considered too much? I'm not suggesting he has too much now, but if it were me, I would tend to believe less structure might be better when BG stunting was a possibility?
This far north, would it be a good idea not to work too much overtime at the BG factory?

Honestly I did not look at his location, here in Texas you can't work enough overtime.

Thanks guys! You all gave me an idea. I'll wait a year or two after the pond fills up to see the type and quantity of weeds that bloom. If they are plentiful, they may provide enough structure. If they're sparse, I'll add brush.

Despite it being late summer, the pond is getting a bit deeper every week. Rainfall here is out pacing evaporation.

Good call Sprk - northern ponds could resemble bathtubs and you'd still have BG management issues. If you don't, most likely have overpopulated stunted LMB population. Sigh.

To quote Lusk, West, Cody...think 3-6' for your structure. Lusk says dense and fluffy for panfish/forage [BG] and keep deep water close for ambush areas for LMB.

I love cinder blocks for structure, but have a couple suggestions:

Collect and build something more centralized in 3-4 locations in 3-6' water. Stacking them can serve as BG condos as discussed on this forum eons ago. I know Condello and Matos found very large BG loved cavities/condos. I would use 8-10 and create such a structure wide at bottom and taper upwards providing steady base - like a pyramid.

Like Scott I worry the structure is only 12-24" off the pond bottom. Fish aren't using anaerobic water on the bottom of the pond as much as they are the more shallow edges. Would make for decent ice fishing structure though. Still, I'd consider condensing, stacking, and moving to 3-4 locations more shallow.

These are just my opinions/observations in my pond. I'm sure lots of others will chime in.

Great looking pond and thanks for sharing your story. Keep posting and keep us updated.

Teehjaeh57, I really like your idea about cinder block pyramid groupings in shallower water with plenty of oxygen. Do you accept the theory that structure does more than merely concentrating fish? Do you think it will benefit the fish in both numbers and growth?

Yes, I do. My personal experience has led me to a policy of less is more when structure is concerned. It's not the right thing for everyone, but it is for me. I prefer PVC structure that is snagless, mobile, and will outlast me and my kids. I only have 5 concentrated areas in my 4 acre pond with this structure, but I also have tons of American and Horned pondweed that more than suffices for structure.

Again, my goals are to encourage predation of my BG, so less cover is what I want. 2:1 slopes and am now allowing my pond to drop about 4' this Fall to encourage more BG predation as they'll run out of aquatic vegetation to use as structure/cover/habitat.

Every pond is different - but this is my strategy to help
me achieve my specific pond management goals.

TJ:

I agree with the 2:1 slope for reducing underwater vegetation, BUT I don't agree with it being that slope right at the bank, and right off the bat from the water edge. If somebody falls in, or you have to fish something out of the water when it's snowy/icy, it's just too hard to walk out of the water.

What do you think? (I'm looking for your experiences here with that steep of a slope right away)

I'd rather see a 1:3 or 1:4 slope out to 18" to 24" of water then let it drop off at 2:1. My opinion isn't written in stone, convince me otherwise.

Oh, I think your strategy on dropping the water level for the winter for the reason that you gave is a good and valid reason. I think it'll work just fine, I just hope that the fish don't target all the GSH first.

The low water in my pond last winter resulted in a VERY small year class BG recruitment from 2010.

I like 2:1 slopes, the only drawback is that I can't seine too well, or at least not effectively as I'd like to. I love how my vegetation remains in a distinct ring around the pond. A few feet of 3:1 then the drop is actually how my pond is, now - due to erosion siltation etc.

Yes, I'm dropping water in hopes to save some electricity costs plus to flush out all YOY BG to the waiting YP, HSB and SMB. The SMB and HSB have JUST turned the corner regarding gape size and it enables them to hammer fish up to about 3- 3.5". This is critical in my fishery as you know. I've been nose hooking 3" BG on a 6 octopus [think lindy rig hook] and tossing out weightless and slowly moving along the shore in about 6' water. The strikes are viscious and it's a lot of fun fishing that way. Glad to see my fish at least realize it's OKAY to eat something that isn't brown and floating...I was beginning to think they were too polite to one another!

By the way, I too wanted a steep bank to minimize weed growth but the excavator thought anything steeper than 3:1 would be too dangerous for kids and old folks like me. We went with a 3:1 slope. If you check the picture above you can see it's pretty steep at that!

I added these brush piles for structure in my lake. The bass love them.



The lake was frozen so it was a good time to set this up.




I've added brush piles like what you see above to 5-6 different areas in the lake.

Great job Dan. Your LMB are proof positive these work!

Wow! Very impressive, Dan. What was the depth of the water where the piles were dropped? How large is your lake? So they really are bass magnets, huh?

Thanks teejaeh. MrSandman - the 3rd pic down is what I have been sinking the most throughout the lake in certain areas. The depth is about 5-8 feet. lake is about 30 acres. The new piles that are the large brush piles really do attract the fish. I have about 3 hot spots where I dropped brush and you can always find nice bass around. I do have a couple of smaller piles in the lake and 2 old beaver dams that hold fish as well and lots of bait fish...

Great Pictures! I will use this idea in my new pond