Between the collective PondBoss forum's idea of pond management, vs. the state's idea for same, that is.
Earlier this evening I attended a pond management seminar given by the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources. I should probably 'fess up and admit that I wasn't there because I had questions or concerns about my pond, but rather to (1),see what issues the general pond-owning public was concerned about, and (2), see what management strategy the state recommended to address those concerns. Simple curiosity was my sole motivational factor.
The program kicked off the evening by stressing the importance of setting goals, and having a plan to help attain those goals. Good stuff, and the foundation for much of the advice given here on the forum. Unfortunately, this was the only thing discussed that I could really get behind and support.
It soon became apparent to me that the state biologist conducting the seminar would be preaching the gospel of balance. And while this is certainly one approach to pond management, I don't believe that it's always necessary to worship at the Altar of Equalibrium in order to meet one's goals while still avoiding the apocalyptic end-of-pond-days scenario that was foretold this evening.
To be fair, I have no way of knowing rather or not the biologist was expressing her own views, or relating the doctrine practiced and recommended by the state. And, trying to condense a subject as complex and multilayered as pond management into an hour and a half timeframe, is just ridiculous. Still, I would've liked to seen a little more out-of-the-box strategies presented.
Examples: Aeration was not recommended. Too much risk due to increased weed growth, leading to probable fish kills later in summer.
Supplemental feeding was HIGHLY discouraged. Again, excessive waste contributing to an explosion of vegetation and the requisite fishkill was given as the reason.
Stocking strategy revolved around the typical, LMB, BG, and CC scenario. I did ask about HSB, WE, and of course HBG in a pond setting, after first stating my opinion that taking a more hands-on, involved approach with a pond might open the door for additional options. But it was pretty obvious that the plan was to build a pond, stock it with bass, bluegills, and catfish, and apply diquat and/or glyphosate once in awhile.
That's it. That's all there is to it, supposedly. At least that's the message I came away with. I would've liked to polled those in attendance to find out what they wanted, and expected out of their ponds. Perhaps this is what most folks want. Dig it, stock it, forget it. But I have a hard time believing that.
So what about the private sector where pond management is concerned? To which side does it lean? PondBoss methodology, or state tactics?
