In rec.ponds ~ Windsong ~ P@p wrote:
"Cichlidiot" wrote in message
...
Here's a potentially radical idea. How about tolerating the birds and
designing a way for them to gravitate towards the far more replaceable
fish (and less emotionally attached) than the expensive koi? The best
design I've seen so far is a deep, vertically flat sided pond fed by a
long, shallow stream/waterfall at a public koi pond.

$$ Oh that would be lovely if we were rich. :-) Have you any idea what
something like that would cost? If we had that kind of money we could call
in some pond builders and redo both ponds. In fact replace them with one
huge 3 to 4,000 gallon pond. But where would I put the plants then if there
are no shelves? How would this keep the (bullfrogs, snakes, snappers) King
Fishers out of the steep sided pond? Steep sided plants ponds are not
attractive or natural looking.

To quote one of my favorite characters... "my, but we are in a mood
today". You do seem to be quite argumentative on this subject. I will make
this one attempt at reason, but any more such illogical replies such as
"if we were rich" will be summarily ignored.

The setup I described was not likely to have been expensive. It was part
of a public park that was set up and maintained completely by volunteers
and donations (and most of those volunteers were part of the 60+ club, so
I doubt they contributed much to the digging of the whole thing). I was
not privy to the costs, but given these facts I doubt it was that much
more expensive than your standard pond and waterfall. The stream was not
some huge river as you seem to be thinking it was, just about 15-20 feet
long and no more than a foot deep leading from the waterfalls to the pond.
The labor may have been an issue given the age of many of the volunteers,
but then it always is an issue when digging out a pond. The key here is to
think beforehand and plan. Just as it would not be wise to put the pond
where all the runoff collects, one should also consider the wildlife of
the area when designing the pond.

As for the attractiveness, the pond was quite attractive with its
surrounding landscaping. It used plants that were fine in deep water,
floating plants and in the case of the lilies, supported by columns too
narrow to allow much perching space. I'm sure a smaller heron could have
tried, but I never observed one bothering because the stream was far
easier to wade into.

The stream was
teaming with mosquito fish, crayfish and occasionally goldfish fry. The
herons almost always ate from there instead of attempting to get anything
in the main pond because they could wade into the stream and have pretty
easy pickings.

$$ What stream? How long was the stream,? Herons do not want 1/2" fry or
small crayfish. How did you keep mosquito fish in the stream and out of the
pond itself?

What stream? The one I keep describing here that you called expensive in
the previous paragraph. Do try to keep up dear. The fish were not forced
to remain anywhere. The mosquito fish and fry could also be found in the
main pond and waterfall pools as well as along the stream. Nothing
restricted their movement so they were found everywhere, although the ones
found in the pools were probably sucked up by the pump and deposited there
unless they did salmon impressions and jumped upstream. The crayfish did
tend to stay in the stream, probably didn't like the drop at the end of
the stream into the pond.

Loosing those kind of fish wasn't a big deal (although I
suppose losing too many mosquito fish could be a problem in mosquito
season, but it's easy to get more).

$$ Mosquitoes do not breed in streams (moving water). I can't believe you
managed to keep the fish in the stream for the herons, and out of your
pond. Did you have a net at the end of the stream? How large were the
mosquito fish?

The water was not fast moving, so there was plenty of opportunity for
mosquito larva to breed. Just as water based larva occasionally will get
into indoor tanks if breeding gnats or mosquitos make it indoors, the
movement of the stream was insufficient to take care of the larva in and
of itself. Refer to prior paragraph as for fish movement between stream
and pond.

The stream served a second purpose too. It was planted with milfoil and
other plants, so it acted as a vegetative filter. The whole stream had
pretty good daylight exposure for plant growth while the actual pond was
partially shaded. Actually, the only foreign species in the pond was a
muskrat that kept trying to build its nest in the pump house. Watching the
herons catch the fish in the stream added a nice natural touch I thought.

$$ How did you keep the fish in the stream? And what about those of us who
don't have $10,000+ to call in pond builders or don't have the space for
huge streams?

My, we are repetitive aren't we. This sort of language would get you
branded at the least excitable and at the worst a troll in another
newsgroup I visit. For the moment, I will leave it at "excitable" in my
mind, but the line is quickly becoming blurred.