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!
Last edited by Peepaw; 11/12/12 11:10 PM.
