I see both sides. Like many here, I do enjoy tinkering and adjusting. However I also think Scott makes a good point....I seem to be noticing a general trend here on the forum, where there has become a desire to establish a concrete "foundation", or point of reference that never changes. Sort of a "2 + 2 always equals 4", kind of thing.

I used to be that way myself, but over the last few months I have started to believe that reducing a pond, and it's various inhabitants, to some sort of equation that always works, always provides the same answer, always interacts and corresponds exactly the same once X, Y, and Z are located, is an exercise in futility. And a pretty good way to exasperate and annoy my already strained, everyday existence.

I no longer worry why all male bluegills do not look exactly alike, or whether or not titanium coated deck screws will last 50 years, or how important it is to build a spawning area for a fish that nature has already pre-programmed to find a way, whether or not I become involved in the process. Ponds aren't static. Their inhabitants are not static, and as far as I'm concerned, the management of both isn't static either. You have to be willing to acknowledge that there is no absolute "right" way, or guaranteed plan for success. I know we're an internet society, with definitive, absolute answers for everything, but in my opinion that doesn't hold true for ponds. If you can't roll with it and improvise along the way, you may be in for a disappointment.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.