Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Creating habitat Homemade "bush"

I want to have more shallow water structure for young BG to survive longer before getting eaten by LMB. After looking at some of the ideas I had an idea to make one reasonably affordable and functional. I'll be interested in your "verdicts" on the functional part.

I started with a 1' square concrete form using 1x4s and plywood from around the house (NOTE to self-Use Screws, NOT nails as you will need to disassembly form to get concrete out!):


Then cut a piece of mdf a little bigger than the form and drilled about 30-40 holes in it. I put 4 8" legs on it to keep it about the concrete form:


Then cut 50' of 1/2" irrigation tubing into about 30 20" sections:


I mixed about 1/3 of a 40# bag of concrete and put that in the form. Then put the "holey" mdf above it, then insert the 30 pieces of pipe into the concret through the mdf:


After about 4 days of curing I pulled the MDF over the tubing which was not as easy as I thought. One piece of irrigation tubing is very flexible but trying to straigten 30 simultaneously is a different story. A little back and forth action on the mdf piece worked well.

I tried to take the concrete out of the form which also turned out to be difficult because I used nails in the form instead of screws. I broke off a piece of the concrete because I was too rough trying to get it out of the form. I've already changed the form to use screws:


I sank him in about 3' of water near one of the feeders which (hopefully) will draw the little-uns.

In hindsight, the things I will change:
1) Use screws, not nails in the form
2) Only use about 20-25 pieces of piping; I think 30 is cluttering over-kill and makes pulling the mdf off the form difficult

I estimate that each "bush" costs about $5.00; $2 for the concrete and $3 for the tubing.

Are these "bushes" significant to make a difference without adding 100 of them?

How well do the tubes stick in the concrete? If you tried to pick it up by a couple of them would they pull out?

Looks good to me.

Good job DJ nice work!

They should work great. Try using only mortar mix with sand/cement , no stone and a little bit thicker. 100 would be the best $500.00 you spend!
Add other materials like wood, willow etc. for even more variety. Well done!

Thanks, all. It weighs about 15 lbs and I can pick it up by a few of the tubes. I haven't tried to pick it up by one.

peepaw, that's a good idea on the mortar. Besides your note, it would make it easier to stick the tubes all the way through the mold without hitting rocks.

We use a mixture of type S,N and I cements to create the deathgrip bond. No slippage and harder than a rock.

Each time put double thick plastic bags or visqueen in the form. Then add cement. No need to take form apart. Can also use left over plastic plant pots from the yard and garden store. Drill holes in the side for extra limbs and support in the pic below.

They should work. Xmas trees on their side are a lot easier and have the right interstitial space for small BG

A draft angle of a couple degrees will help tremendously on your molds.

Staying with PVC will improve DO and never needs replacing

Many people don't want plastic in their water - natural only.

I have seen a lot of artificial structure and never seen any that is as good as xmas trees for shallow water protection of small BG.

Explain " as good" for us. What makes them better? We know the disadvantages, certainly no question they work great while they last, but what data proves better?

The various DNR fisheries biologists we work with for states like Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Florida, New York, New Mexico, Illinois naming just a few, are all utilizing artificial habitat for the noted benefits. State hatcheries are installing artificial habitat in their grow ponds.

If trees are better, why would they spenrd the money to install artificial, or is that just your opinion?

Why after installing all kinds of pumps, hoses, aerators, filters, etc. Would some folks say:

"No plastic in my water"?


We drink, eat and sleep on various forms of plastics everywhere in our lives.

We don't support making more plastics, just utilizing what has been discarded and put to good use to benefit the fish and save landfill space.

I think artificial habitat is the best option we have at our disposal.

There is overwhelming scientific proof that rotting organic materials don't help water quality or fish health and growth rates.

We have always recommended a variety of habitat materials for the fish to choose from. In no way, do we feel adding artificial habitat products for shallow fry protection and development is inferior and "not as good".

After all, that tree simply gets covered in slime (food) and settles back flat on the bottom as it decomposes. Time to get some more cinder blocks,rope,cement..........and fishing lures.

The bush we started talking about here looks a heck of a lot like that tree, It will work every bit as good!

I've used both and find no appreciable difference in functionality. Oak is the exception regarding "natural". I'll certainly never use that again.

Dave, is it because of the tannins? I have lot's of dead trees down right now and I was considering an Oak/Cedar mix for some brush piles. My water's low right now, so adding structure for the Spring re-fill is on my to do list.

JKB,
I had to go to google to find out what "draft angle" was but it is a good idea.

Eric,
I am a little concerned about putting the Xmas trees because they catch lures almost as well as small fish; hehe. I'll pick out a good spot and try it.

A general question to all... Would you rather place the small fish habitat near a feeder so the fish can access the food or away from the feeder?

Yep Al, it's the tannins. Years ago I built a pond and had to clear lots of post oaks. I thought it would be a neat idea to have the dozer push them to the bottom of the pond for structure. We got a good rain and the water turned black. I bought some BG, CC and, fatheads. They died within hours. Then I bought some crawdads. They lasted about a day. More rain came and nothing changed. The water was still lethal. I added enough chlorine to kill everything in a couple of Olympic sized swimming pools. It lightened a little but was still lethal to fish. I pumped it almost dry and blew the motors on 2 pumps. I quit pumping in July and the summer took care of the rest. A year later, it was OK after drying.

Lusk told me that they will not effect all water the same way depending on alkalinity, etc. To test, cut a piece of wood and toss it into a bucket of the pond water. If it stays clear, it will be OK. However, I'll stay with cedar and plastic.

Thanks Dave. The oaks had been dead for a year before I took them down, but I'll test and see. PVC and cedars sounds better.

I should have figured this out myself. When I soak oak for use on the smoker, the water turns color after only a few minutes.

I think I'll offer some thoughts on this thread. As a professional fisheries biologist, without a dog in this hunt, I'll tell you what I see.
The very best fish attractors for small fish (the backbone of the foodchain in bass/bluegill ponds) is dense aquatic plants along the shallow shoreline. Bushy pondweed, American pondweed...other species of pondweed, are fabulous for small fish. Not only do these plants provide cover, they provide a variety of substrates for food for tiny fish.
I've used lots and lots of Christmas trees as well as native cedar as structure in barren lakes. That stuff is excellent to attract big numbers of small fish. I can't tell you how many times I've driven my electrofishing boat over the top of a Christmas tree or a cedar and just watch the little fish boil out of it. This stuff attracts many more small fish than any of the artificial attractors I've ever seen. While artificial attractors are good...and will attract fish...I've not seen the same numbers of fish there as I do in the aquatic plants along the shorelines of ponds.
The biggest down-side to Christmas trees and cedar is that they deteriorate over a fairly short time. A Christmas tree loses its needles within a few months. Small twigs are gone in a year. By the end of year 2, the next smallest size branches are gone. By year 8, the trunk and main branches are left.
Artificial structures seem to work best in bunches to attract medium-sized and larger fish. Some structures grow biofilm and algaes, but some don't.
For a pond without cover or structure, use a variety of media to get the best results. And, be picky about where you put it. Here's my best tip of the day about placing structure or cover. Fish prefer to live in a community joined by travel paths. Think "community" rather than single stands of structure, randomly placed around a pond or lake.

Thanks Bob, great advice as always.

Anyone try cheap fake Christmas trees for longevity? Or do the plastic "needles" make a mess? I would bet they last a lot longer than the real thing.

Peepaw I was addressing one particular aspect of structure , protection of small young BG. in shallow water While we use a host of structure ideas (see the structure archive) in our lakes there are lots of people who want their ponds 100% natural. There are 2 basic purposes for structure in ponds. Concentrating fish to catch them and protecting small fish from predation.

I will point out that the forum's job is to provide the best info possible in an unbiased manner for all the readers to choose. I am not anti- artificial structure but instead was talking about a specific structure use.

I have long avoided posting info negative to artificial structure from the studies ( and will not now) because it may be harmful to advertisers who sell it. As both Bob (above) and I (in other threads and in my PB Conv. presentation) have noted artificial structure can be a good option and will work well in many situations. But there are other options as well and it is our job to point that out to forum members. I trust that answers any questions you may have.



DJS - "A general question to all... Would you rather place the small fish habitat near a feeder so the fish can access the food or away from the feeder."

Both as it depends on the goal. If the purpose is to protect small fish from predation then near where they are born (near the beds). If to help catch fish then where you will be fishing. See the structure archive text for the types of places to consider. We do put some structure (complex) near our feeders.

I don't like the idea of small plastic pieces degrading or floating around the BOW, but that's just me. I like the idea of using PVC as it's meant to be submerged in water...not sure about ye olde Walmart Xmas tree!

I do know they were making weighted plastic weeds designed for the YP ice fisherman a few years back, believe it or not. One was supposed to drill holes in a circular pattern around their fishing holes and the weeds were said to attract YP.

About 5 years ago I cut down a large(make that huge) cedar tree and drug it, with my tractor, and a long heavy rope into the water next to the dam. After a couple of good rains it was submerged and working like a champ. But, it never collected any algae. Then some heavy winds came and the darn thing floated to the other end of the pond. It stopped and hung up in some shallows of my favorite fishing spot. So, I got my jon boat and tied onto it to drag it back. No way. I had to let out all of the rope and manually drag it.

I was wishing I had used some weighted plastic.

I've used both and find advantages and disadvantages to both.

Placed strategically along fish travel routes, as Bob said, I prefer plastics. For something placed along the bank, into the water, I prefer natural. But then, my water levels vary a lot during the summer.