Originally Posted by FishinRod
I agree with Bill. The native cedars on my property seem much more decay resistant than the other types of evergreens that were planted in the 1930s.

Of course, tree names are VERY confusing, since humans have been naming trees long before we came up with taxonomic classification systems.

My trees are Eastern Redcedars. These are not a "true" cedar, but are actually a species in the juniper family.

They are very resistant to decay. I have places where I have cleared a patch, and start digging 10 years later in the moist soil and discover the roots are still in great shape and quite strong.

My Ponderosa Pines decay much faster both above ground and below ground. However, I have only put cedars in the ponds.

If you do not have an available tree species on your property that you periodically clear, then you can certainly go the Christmas tree route. In my area, they sell 6-7 different species as Christmas trees. We also have unmanned Christmas tree recycling centers where you drop your tree off. I suspect they would be just fine having people remove trees to be re-purposed for wildlife.

I also think you could try snapping a few branches to see which species are tough and which are very soft wood. Load up your truck or trailer with the tough ones and make your fish happy. I suspect some may not still have a solid trunk after 10 years. However, even with softer trees, I don't think you are adding a lot of "nutrients" to your pond. Cellulose is typically not that easy to break down in nature.
Eastern Red Cedars here as well. I've found the 10-12 that I have used fairly easily, but they are not exactly all over the property. Going forward, I will probably just use the Christmas Trees on a yearly basis to keep the piles healthy.

Pond Boss Magazine subscriber