What planetary-alignment has to occur for me to want to write the exact, self same passage as Dr Conrad?

Were I to try to respond to Phils post, I'd write, simply:

"...I see both sides of this discussion, as usual. If you like the looks of the rock, and are willing to do all that extra maintenance to clean it as frequently as is needed, and you are not trying to keep high quality koi in their optimum environment, then there is that segment of the hobby who are going to keep their rocks on the bottom of their ponds."

~ Quoted from: Doc Conrad

Uh, I'd also supply the precient observation that this population segment is in the vast majority right now, so rather than lopsidedly vomit on and alienate these people, (consumers) I think I'd rather determine (on their behalf) exactly how MANY annual cleanouts are required, what the EXACT stocking densities must be, quantify EXACTLY what noxious gases might (or might not be) produced through measurements, and outline EXACTLY how many water changes and at EXACTLY what feeding regimen / rate would be recommended.

Advanced Aquascape™ pond, two-belly design, 6x6 upflow aggregate filter w/ 9,000gph pump feeding falls.

No one drew me into a conversation about the "Ideal" Koi Pond; but a pond which is held to that ideal would have no gravel. This necessarily transfers almost all the biofiltration requirements [provided by a gravel bed] to an exterior biological and mechanical filtration source. Fine.

But you see there's a "perspective" flipside. Those ADI hobbyists who see you puking on their systems here look at the "Koi People" with their (admittedly) sexy $3,000 bead, Bakki Tray and Kaldness filters and think "They have as much money in their filter as they would in a roadworthy used car!"

Mentally, there are very few congruities in the mindset of the "Koi Person" versus the "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi"

In fact, with reflection, their aesthetic objectives could be considered to be diametrically opposed. One is solely about the Koi, and one is about the pond, with Koi. And they don't always do it right.

All I am saying is two things:

1) There should be no reason why respect for another person's goals cannot exist through an appreciation of the essential *differences* in their approach.

One day, in my Dream World - a "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi" walks to the edge of "Mr. Koi Connoisseur's" pond and says "My God, you have such beautiful Koi! I didn't know their skin could be so clear, so smooth! How large they can be! Your water! They float in air! Can I have another Martini?"

And Mr. Koi Connoisseur, sipping on a drink at the "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi" 's house a week later says: "Oh My God, this pond looks like a natural oasis or a Garden of Eden! I don't recognize even half of these plants! Where is the filter?"

And they don't puke on one another about their differences. (Perhaps because they are adulterers.)

In fact, Mrs. "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi" inquires as to how Mr. Koi Connoisseur's water is so beautifully filtrated and he helpfully demonstrates a backwash on his handy bead filter.

When Mr. Koi Connoisseur is back at "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi"'s house later, [Oddly, while Mr. "Water Gardener Who Keeps Koi" is out of town], he asks his smokey-eyed and lithesome wife "So, how do you maintain your pond?" and she says "I pay some teenagers $10 per hour and they clean it up twice a year, instead of doing a little all along."

And he is quietly impressed at the wisdom of twice a year chaos instead of checking on the flows every couple days and sweating a filter-clog when he goes out of town.

=========================

I want to toss out the following too:

I will shortly upload some images of a Bead filter that couldn't run for three years without cleaning or backwash. It caked and clogged! The Nerve!!!

I mean, if you cannot run a filter or pond system for three years without maintenence, what's the point?

I also think people who choose filtration systems that cannot run two or three years without maintenence are stupid on a personal level too, and deserve to be personally spotlighted and humiliated..

Let's not look at these as 'different approaches' to pond enjoyment. Let's over-simplify, and see them as issues of stupidity, personally related to a persons lack of cortical capacity. Their net worth in the scheme of life.

Enough sarcasm.

Philip missed an opportunity to show people (help protect them from) what neglect or abuse of a gravel bottom, skimmer-to-falls system can result in.

He would protect consumers from the system, not it's proper use. He doesn't have to represent that maintaining that system would have been easy. In fact, if his goal was to reduce the number of gravel bottom skimmer-to-falls ponds going in the ground, he would have accurately outlined the routine maintenence of this pond, which might have been scarier than just showing this long overdue cleanout.

And I think Doc Conrad has skated very close to what I would like to do. I would like people to *understand* what is required to have a successful gravel bottom, skimmer-to-falls system --> And it is *not* necessarily EASY, especially if stocking densities and feeding rates are as ridiculous as they often are.

Actually it is; it's 'easy' for a long time, then it's a "day of Chaos", then it goes right back to being easy again, for 6 months or a year, and then the day of Chaos again.

It's the same in all my fish tanks, as I am fond of Undergravel filtration there, too.

Dudes. I hope you know we are REHASHING the entire "Under Gravel Filter" thing once again, only on a SEVERAL TON basis, in ponds.

To say it 'has no place', is ridiculous.

To aptly point out, as Dr. Conrad has, that such 'undergravel filters' require maintenence, which might require hiring a person with a disposable lower-lumbar, and a system if neglected which can bite you in the butt, is deadly accurate.

Dr. Johnson