So D, are you actually going to tell someone that has come to love their
wetpets that are now 24" or 30" long that they now have to get rid of them?
I seriously think not. What are you going to do with them? With little known
about KHV not many (if any at all) would be willing to take them off your
hands, let alone pay for them. You can add to the mix the number of
parasites, bacteria and diseases that we do know about with koi and
basically you are going to be SOL. We're not talking about 6" or even 12"
goldfish here... we're talking about pond pigs that should, in proper
conditions grown to be 30" or even 36" long! It's really not hard to get the
water volumes needed to keep koi healthy, it means digging deeper. Here in
zone 6b it's not recommended to even think about keeping koi unless you dig
5.5' to 6' deep. Koi don't do well in water below 40 degrees...
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"Dsybok" wrote in message
ink.net...
That rule is rubbish. 600 gallons is plenty for half a dozen koi and when
they get large enough to be a problem you just rotate them for smaller
ones.

Not everyone has an acre of property to fit a 10,000 gallon pond on and
these people should be able to enjoy thier koi without being scared to
death
that they need thousands of gallons just for a couple of koi.

Sorry I dont mean to be a jerk, im just sick of people telling me that you
have to have a fricking lake to enjoy koi, when it just aint true.

D

"Janet" wrote in message
...
Uhmm... PlainBill..... a 1500 gallon koi pond is only big enough to keep
about 4 koi if one follows the generally accepted rule of 1000 gallons
for
the first koi and then 100 additional gallons per fish... I know folks
with
25,000 gallons and are thinking of going bigger yet. )
Janet in sunny Niagara Falls

--

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
I'd say that the deciding factor should be desired durability. I have
two concrete koi ponds over 17 years old, and see no reason why they
won't last longer than I will. I see no signs of leakage. Of course,
if you're always redoing designs, that durability might be a
disadvantage.

A competent builder will use rebar to reinforce the concrete, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about earthquakes. A 15,000 gallon pool is
a typical pool, while a 1,500 gallon koi pond would be huge (the
larger the srtucture, the more likely it is to be damaged by an
earthquake). If you suffer a quake strong enough to damage a 1000
gallon pond, that will be the least of your problems!!!

PlainBill

On 30 Aug 2004 23:05:44 -0700, (Michael Capone)
wrote:

Hi Folks,

Been doing a lot of reading lately on the concrete vs. 45-mil liner
issue when setting up a fish pond. I'd like to ask the question in a
slightly different way:

Assume that money is no object (for the moment, at least; I'm sure
I'll come to my senses soon...) Also, assume that I don't have to
set
it up myself (I have a competent fish pond installer who can go
either
route, and is at this very moment sitting around waiting for me to
make up my mind on which direction to go). Given those two criteria,
I'd like to know, which pond bottom is best in the long run? Since
ease of installation is not a concern, I'd like to hear from people
who have had to live with one or the other for some time. Is
maintenance easier on one or the other? Is one "prettier" than the
other (highly subjective, I know). Does algae grow on concrete and
not come off?

I should mention that I live near San Jose, CA; earthquakes can
happen, although I'm not sure how big a deal this is. I don't get
the
extreme temperatures, though (freezing nights are relatively rare,
though it can get up to 100 F on occasion). There are no tree roots
anywhere nearby that I have to worry about.

So, thoughts? Thanks in advance for any input. I've been tearing my
hair out over this crazy issue. Thanks!

Michael

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from
oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent
that
will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine