I hear you Dave. When we moved, I tossed out a stack of magazines, PB included, and some of those were still in their mailing wrapper. I don't like that, as its a needless waste of resources.

As I see it, there are three primary groups that make up the PB mag readership. The pond professionals, the new pond owners, and the pond fanatics. And before anyone gets offended, I use the term fanatic not in a derogatory manner, but rather to imply seriousness where a pond is concerned.

The professionals subscribe because, well, it contributes to their meal ticket. The new pond owners are in that excited, "I want to learn everything I can about ponds", phase, so they're reading anything and everything they can. Chances are we all went through, or are currently going through, that phase.

The fanatics are those who live, eat, and breathe, ponds and fish. Professionals may well be fanatics, but fanatics don't have to be professionals. I see this group as looking for that edge, searching for the smallest details to achieve their vision of pond perfection. I think this is probably the core group of subscribers, the ones who have read every issue cover-to-cover for years.

I don't think I ever made it to fanatic stage, certainly not if encompassing the entire spectrum of pond management is the yardstick by which one's degree of devotion is measured by. And definitely not these days, where I'm less concerned with all the details than I am with enjoying our ponds.

And for me, the details may well be the sticking point. From my perspective, there's not exactly a whirlwind of new and exciting development within the pond/fish industry. When I was younger I was heavily involved in hot rodding. I subscribed to most of the big name magazines of the day, and eagerly devoured them as soon as they hit the mailbox. Sooner or later however, you have to ask yourself just how many times do I need to see an article written about hopping up a small block chevy? And that was in the fast paced days of auto technology development.

Without fresh development in the pond/fish industry, what is left to write about? We could choose to delve deeper into the same subject matter, breaking it up into bite-sized pieces in an effort to educate and fill columns, and PB mag does that. But I'm not the world's brightest guy, and after a few paragraphs of excruciatingly detailed scientific evaluation, I'm ready to put the mag down and pick up a fishing rod. And I never get back to it.

Like I said, I'm not going to be a pond or fish expert now, or anytime in the future. When I walk down to the water's edge I can't tell you what family or genus that plant belongs in. But what I can do, is recognize that I've seen it before. And most importantly, I can walk right to the shelf at my farm store and point to the chemical that will take care of it, should the need arise. For my limited level of pond management, that's as far as I need to become involved. I know that's not the scenario that may be ideal, but I believe it is accurate for the vast, vast majority of pond owners.

For every fanatic, there are 20 more who buy their fish off a truck, and would never entertain the idea of hiring a pond consultant. I also recognize that's probably not a popular notion, but I believe it correct nonetheless.

And that leads me to an area of pond/water/fish management that IS experiencing change and development....legislation. And unfortunately, that's an area deemed off limits for discussion. And it has the potential to affect every single one of us.

"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.