which gar?

[troppond]

I'm doing 2 tiger muskies, northern pike, or regular muskies, whichever is cheapest

 

[Wiggles92]

So no musky?

I'm doing 2 tiger muskies, northern pike, or regular muskies, whichever is cheapest

Are you thinking of keeping a muskellunge/northern pike or two with a gar? If so, please reconsider keeping the two fish species together, and just pick one or the other. The muskellunge/northern pike will easily out-compete the gar for food. If you want to still do both, consider looking into pickerels; they're like little pike and should get along with the gar much better.

 

[E_americanus]

my responses in GREEN

Lately it seems like there have been a lot of people in the gar sub-forum asking for advice on like the most basic and non-interactive way to throw a gar into a hole in the ground -- I am not calling the OP out specifically and it is good that people ask questions -- but just because gar are hardy fish does not mean they are ideal for a low-maintenance pond... they are not beginner fish, plus... why not just heat your pond so your fish can thrive?

Sorry to derail and again OP this was directed at the forum this week in general, not you specifically. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

i agree (also no offense to the OP) - this week has been a little crazy with some of the assumptions about gars coming up, but hopefully the resulting discussions have helped with that...and hopefully others will read through them in the future.

no offense taken madding, but this is a 1000$+ hole in the ground haha. Just every year I make the pond bigger during Spring. In its current location this should be its max size. Every year I've been kind of rushed but this year I have all the time in the world. Its a fact that the average person builds 3 pond before they are happy, and this is the 4th pond. The pond has had ccountless hours of mmaintenance and care. And I have kept natives, tropicals, and koi in this pond. And just wondering but monsterminis how is a 5 ft alligator gar fine but a 5 ft musky or 4 ft pike isnt? I mean its going to be 12x7?

quite honestly i think either type of fish could work (gator gar or muskellunge/pike) in that size pond, but likely not both (will likely comment on that further in response to ryan's posts below). once the gator or pikes (using that for both species of Esox you list) get to larger size, unless they are well fed (and even if they are in some cases) you may be dealing with some serious bullying that could result in the death of a fish. although muskies can be quite voracious, they have little protection other than speed if the gator decides to shred them. the gator gar on the other hand, would be pretty well protected from Esox jaws. just something to consider. the growth rates are also different, so you would have to time things out appropriately - both pike and muskies get big in their first year, but gators can definitely grow faster. lots of complications if you choose to start with YOY fish, and if not, it may be hard to find individuals that are larger but haven't stopped growing.

again, i would advise going with one type of fish or the other. with 12 x 7, you should be ok - and it should be a pretty cool pond from the sound of it!

What Madding was getting at is that many people think that because gars are reputed to be like tanks therefore you can just plop them in pretty much any freshwater body of water, no matter what the temperature is, and go. In reality, they are like tanks if they have been acclimated to the conditions and are provided with ample food and space. They don't handle rapid changes very well at all, but they can adjust to certain conditions if they are given enough time to slowly do so. They're extremely adaptable fish, but they're still not invincible.

I honestly wouldn't keep anything over 3' in that pond if you don't intend on feeding them anything other than the other fish that are going to be in there.
Not sure i understand the statement here. why wouldn't a 4' fish be able to survive in the pond if it is stocked or fed regularly with minnows or koi?

You'll want to try to build a food chain of sorts to ensure that there will always be an ample supply of food for the gar.
Not necessarily, depending on what the OP did with previous ponds (which were obviously kept successfully), they could feed the fish in the pond from time to time and be fine. 12' x 7' is a nice size pond, but it's not huge...one could still target feed the inhabitants, and they often do this in experimental and aquaculture situations - this doesn't need to be much different.

I'd say start by adding a bunch of minnows (shiners, etc.), then adding a small school of adult bluegills (specifically bluegills, not other sunfish) a few weeks later, then add a few bullhead catfish (all of the same species), then finally add a single gar after all the other fish have been in the pond for a few weeks. All of the fish that I mentioned before make up the bulk of the diets of wild gars in different regions of North America. The goal is to be sure that there are plenty of smaller fish for the gar to eat, and to also be sure that the other fish are doing fine prior to adding the gar.

although these fishes are commonly fed upon by gars, this setup is unnecessary in a pond this "small". we're not looking at even an acre here, so as stated earlier, the pond could easily be fed on a regular basis. also, artificial ponds (including those maintained for gars and muskie) have been stocked with fathead minnows and those do just fine...no need to deal with sunfishes and catfishes. if there is sunlight and ample place for algae or zooplankton to develop, then the minnows will be ok. they may perpetuate themselves to an extent, but the predators will likely keep picking off the large specimens. in the end, it will likely be necessary to re-stock the tank with forage fish from time to time. again, establishment of an entire food web is unnecessary and likely very impractical in this size pond setup.


In either pond, you'll want to have plenty of plants along the edges of the pond, ome floating plants, and some submerged plants. Underwater structures such as driftwood will be greatly appreciated by all of the fish, so consider provided some form of underwater shelter as well. These additions will help to keep the other fish that act as the gars food from getting completely wiped out.

If you plan on feeding any fish over 3', then be prepared to have some heavy filtration on that pond to prevent waste from building up. It may not affect the gar at first, but it will kill off the other fish and eventually the gar.

I'm not aware of anyone who has alligator gar for sale currently, but I know that Aquascape has them from time to time. If you choose to go for a smaller species of gar, then check with some of the other vendors on here such as Snookn21, and also be sure to check TFD because they sometimes have gars for sale.

Are you thinking of keeping a muskellunge/northern pike or two with a gar? If so, please reconsider keeping the two fish species together, and just pick one or the other.

i definitely agree!

The muskellunge/northern pike will easily out-compete the gar for food. If you want to still do both, consider looking into pickerels; they're like little pike and should get along with the gar much better.

although pickerel won't get as large as NP/Muskellunge, the problem is also that they don't get as large as NP/Muskellunge. even a big FLG (particularly one raised in a pond) can take down a decent sized grass pickerel, so unless you can get a hold of a big chain pickerel, they size discrepancy will eventually catch up and lead to problems...especially if you keep an ALG. gars will also just try to take down pickerel even if they can't fully swallow them...this usually results in the death of the pickerel either way. pickerel are great, but they will only get along in a gar tank/pond temporarily in most cases--

 

[Wiggles92]

I honestly wouldn't keep anything over 3' in that pond if you don't intend on feeding them anything other than the other fish that are going to be in there.
Not sure i understand the statement here. why wouldn't a 4' fish be able to survive in the pond if it is stocked or fed regularly with minnows or koi?

What I meant was that if he simply added the gar plus the forage fish without restocking them in the future and didn't provide the gar with any other source of food, 3' would be a good maximum size in order to allow the forage fish to reproduce and avoid being wiped out. I mean, one would expect a 3' gar that was past its major growth stage(s) to eat less than a 4' gar that was past its major growth stage(s), right? Activity levels and such would still play a factor, but overall size and mass should be a good judge of food consumption, correct?

You'll want to try to build a food chain of sorts to ensure that there will always be an ample supply of food for the gar.
Not necessarily, depending on what the OP did with previous ponds (which were obviously kept successfully), they could feed the fish in the pond from time to time and be fine. 12' x 7' is a nice size pond, but it's not huge...one could still target feed the inhabitants, and they often do this in experimental and aquaculture situations - this doesn't need to be much different.

This statement was geared towards simply adding the gar and the forage fish that made up the rest of the food web, and then letting nature take its course. The idea was to make further outside food sources unnecessary or at least decrease the frequency of restocking. The food web concept also allows the OP to have many of other fish that he wanted to stock in the pond such as bullheads and bass. I based my advice on what I had read prior to stocking my own natives pond; the publications that I read recommended establishing a food web in order to obtain the best results for fish size and health. In the one publication, ponds stocked with solely minnows and the top predator did much more poorly in comparison to the ponds with the food web.

I'd say start by adding a bunch of minnows (shiners, etc.), then adding a small school of adult bluegills (specifically bluegills, not other sunfish) a few weeks later, then add a few bullhead catfish (all of the same species), then finally add a single gar after all the other fish have been in the pond for a few weeks. All of the fish that I mentioned before make up the bulk of the diets of wild gars in different regions of North America. The goal is to be sure that there are plenty of smaller fish for the gar to eat, and to also be sure that the other fish are doing fine prior to adding the gar.
although these fishes are commonly fed upon by gars, this setup is unnecessary in a pond this "small". we're not looking at even an acre here, so as stated earlier, the pond could easily be fed on a regular basis. also, artificial ponds (including those maintained for gars and muskie) have been stocked with fathead minnows and those do just fine...no need to deal with sunfishes and catfishes. if there is sunlight and ample place for algae or zooplankton to develop, then the minnows will be ok. they may perpetuate themselves to an extent, but the predators will likely keep picking off the large specimens. in the end, it will likely be necessary to re-stock the tank with forage fish from time to time. again, establishment of an entire food web is unnecessary and likely very impractical in this size pond setup.

Same deal as before: provide a food web in order to avoid having to restock the forage fish at all/as frequently (more likely the latter). While it is impractical to build the food web, it will make life much easier for the OP from a frequent stocking of forage fish standpoint. Personally, I am unable to maintain a decent number of minnows in my natives pond due to predation despite frequent restocking and areas that give them shelter, but the yearly influx of bass and sunfish fry helps to keep the system going because many of them serve as food immediately while others get the chance to grow a bit before getting devoured while even fewer individuals make it to adulthood. I'm just providing the OP my opinion that's based on personal experience that has demonstrated to me that there must be plenty of forage fish for the top predators to flourish and these forage fish must not be able to be completely wiped out.

The muskellunge/northern pike will easily out-compete the gar for food. If you want to still do both, consider looking into pickerels; they're like little pike and should get along with the gar much better.

although pickerel won't get as large as NP/Muskellunge, the problem is also that they don't get as large as NP/Muskellunge. even a big FLG (particularly one raised in a pond) can take down a decent sized grass pickerel, so unless you can get a hold of a big chain pickerel, they size discrepancy will eventually catch up and lead to problems...especially if you keep an ALG. gars will also just try to take down pickerel even if they can't fully swallow them...this usually results in the death of the pickerel either way. pickerel are great, but they will only get along in a gar tank/pond temporarily in most cases[/QUOTE]

I didn't consider that the gar might actually eat the pickerel; I was more thinking along the lines of finding an alternative to the pike/muskellunge that wouldn't compete with the gar quite so much. I was indeed thinking of the larger chain pickerel (average of 24" in length) rather than the the smaller grass and redfin pickerels (no more than 16" in length); I probably should have clarified that part...



I think the main discrepancy here is that I was suggesting a pond stock that allowed for a more natural food web and permitted less frequent restocking of forage fish (or ideally no restocking) while you were going for frequent restocking of forage fish in order to avoid having to create the food web. My idea wasn't focused on just solely feeding the gar while your idea seems to come across as focusing just on the gar. I may just be misinterpreting all of this, so I apologize if I did indeed misinterpret something...

 

[troppond]

Haha I meant just have the muskies or pikes, I know the the alligator gar, if it was made mad by a muskie attack, would rip it to pieces. My plan is to have the muskies or pikes with an ever present clean-up crew. Just one school of around 5 4-5 inch bluegills that will be constantly recreated because of the muskie's predation. Also there will be a school of mixed fry and baitfish, that will basicly consist of green sunfish, bluegills, lmb, all fry, with minnows, shiners, and chubs. These will all supply food to the muskies along with me feeding them. Also, any bugs will be eaten by the bluegills and fry and shiner schools. Also, the fish pieces that could fall off when the muskie feeds can be eaten by all the other fish. I might also have around 30 or so mudminnows to eat everything on the bottom, with the rock stacks and shelter on the bottom, I'd think the muskie would rather go after the baitfish or bluegill than the mudminnows which have easily accessible shelter with thier small size.

 

[Wiggles92]

Haha I meant just have the muskies or pikes, I know the the alligator gar, if it was made mad by a muskie attack, would rip it to pieces. My plan is to have the muskies or pikes with an ever present clean-up crew. Just one school of around 5 4-5 inch bluegills that will be constantly recreated because of the muskie's predation. Also there will be a school of mixed fry and baitfish, that will basicly consist of green sunfish, bluegills, lmb, all fry, with minnows, shiners, and chubs. These will all supply food to the muskies along with me feeding them. Also, any bugs will be eaten by the bluegills and fry and shiner schools. Also, the fish pieces that could fall off when the muskie feeds can be eaten by all the other fish. I might also have around 30 or so mudminnows to eat everything on the bottom, with the rock stacks and shelter on the bottom, I'd think the muskie would rather go after the baitfish or bluegill than the mudminnows which have easily accessible shelter with thier small size.

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[E_americanus]

in YELLOW. the gist of my response is that the food web option is elaborate, and although interesting, impractical for this scenario and size pond. many other factors will constrain the number of fish components to the food web scenario--

What I meant was that if he simply added the gar plus the forage fish without restocking them in the future and didn't provide the gar with any other source of food, 3' would be a good maximum size in order to allow the forage fish to reproduce and avoid being wiped out. I mean, one would expect a 3' gar that was past its major growth stage(s) to eat less than a 4' gar that was past its major growth stage(s), right? Activity levels and such would still play a factor, but overall size and mass should be a good judge of food consumption, correct?

still not really following the logic. the limiting factor here is gape limitation with the gar vs the forage fish...consumption will be high at that size no matter what (the differences in 3' to 4' would be negligible in this scenario). the pond would need restocking no matter what, as gars feed on relatively small prey fish (in this case the forage adults) since they are gape limited and would pick off the larger fish first. re-stocking of food fishes would be necessary regardless of the size of the gar at sizes beyond 3' (and likely even 2' depending on species).

This statement was geared towards simply adding the gar and the forage fish that made up the rest of the food web, and then letting nature take its course. The idea was to make further outside food sources unnecessary or at least decrease the frequency of restocking. The food web concept also allows the OP to have many of other fish that he wanted to stock in the pond such as bullheads and bass. I based my advice on what I had read prior to stocking my own natives pond; the publications that I read recommended establishing a food web in order to obtain the best results for fish size and health. In the one publication, ponds stocked with solely minnows and the top predator did much more poorly in comparison to the ponds with the food web.

not sure what papers you were looking at, but there are a lot of other factors to consider. the main issue at stake here is the size of the pond...it is small in the grand scheme of things and it is impractical to expect to be able to set up a self-sustaining food web of that many fishes. there will be re-stocking necessary, and that is likely more work than what the OP wants to do (as evidenced by their current plan - which should work well using centrarchid forage fishes and a couple top predators).

in a larger pond, yes, setting up a food web of sorts would be beneficial, but it is often unnecessary and not used in many practical aquaculture and fish research setups. we have larger experimental ponds that are based on just a few food web levels and they do just fine. the MDNRE maintains muskies in ponds with just minnows.

again, it may be fun to set up, but it will not be self sustaining (minnows, sunfish, catfish, gar, phyto/zoo plankton) in that small size of a pond. restocking on SOME level will be necessary for the food web setup OR maintaining just a couple top predators.

Same deal as before: provide a food web in order to avoid having to restock the forage fish at all/as frequently (more likely the latter). While it is impractical to build the food web, it will make life much easier for the OP from a frequent stocking of forage fish standpoint. Personally, I am unable to maintain a decent number of minnows in my natives pond due to predation despite frequent restocking and areas that give them shelter, but the yearly influx of bass and sunfish fry helps to keep the system going because many of them serve as food immediately while others get the chance to grow a bit before getting devoured while even fewer individuals make it to adulthood. I'm just providing the OP my opinion that's based on personal experience that has demonstrated to me that there must be plenty of forage fish for the top predators to flourish and these forage fish must not be able to be completely wiped out.


although pickerel won't get as large as NP/Muskellunge, the problem is also that they don't get as large as NP/Muskellunge. even a big FLG (particularly one raised in a pond) can take down a decent sized grass pickerel, so unless you can get a hold of a big chain pickerel, they size discrepancy will eventually catch up and lead to problems...especially if you keep an ALG. gars will also just try to take down pickerel even if they can't fully swallow them...this usually results in the death of the pickerel either way. pickerel are great, but they will only get along in a gar tank/pond temporarily in most cases

I didn't consider that the gar might actually eat the pickerel; I was more thinking along the lines of finding an alternative to the pike/muskellunge that wouldn't compete with the gar quite so much. I was indeed thinking of the larger chain pickerel (average of 24" in length) rather than the the smaller grass and redfin pickerels (no more than 16" in length); I probably should have clarified that part...

yes, clarification should be used here, and it is also a relatively uncommon species to attain via pet trade (and pet trade at that size). even fisheries operations don't commonly carry them, and a big gator would still easily take down the fish. at small juvenile stages for smaller gar species it could work, but other wise the pickerel option is generally irrelevant here.


I think the main discrepancy here is that I was suggesting a pond stock that allowed for a more natural food web and permitted less frequent restocking of forage fish (or ideally no restocking) while you were going for frequent restocking of forage fish in order to avoid having to create the food web. My idea wasn't focused on just solely feeding the gar while your idea seems to come across as focusing just on the gar. I may just be misinterpreting all of this, so I apologize if I did indeed misinterpret something...

yes, the food web setup is impractical and it will not be self-sustaining at that size. i was going for maintaining the top fishes of the food web, because that is what the OP was asking about originally. even with their plans to go with Esox instead, they are just using sunfishes as forage, not creating an elaborate food web. obviously plant matter and zooplankton will play a role, but there is no need to include several intermediate portions of the food web in this scenario (and again, the pond is actually small in the grand scheme of multi-fish species food webs).
[/QUOTE]

 

[Polypterus]

Just 2 cents from this point of view and experiance..
We maintain a pond of similar dimensions and type, I routinely hold gar (Any of the seven species) in it during summer months. It also has a few forage species in it. Mostly Bluntnose minnows, Long ear suns and Topminnows. It is without fail that after the gar go in there the population of forage species plummets and I need to usually re-stock it once or twice (sometimes more) during the summer to supply appropriate feed sized fish. I really do not think that in a standard type small sized pond without separation that you can sustain a forage base without adding anything regularly.

Would also like to add I have only had crap luck with Musky in ponds like this. Usually do fine until around 15 inches or so (YoY really) and then they just seem to suffer and crash. They are not in my opinion suited for this type system. Grass picks do awesome and Northerns are so-so, They get by but do not seem to really thrive.

 

[MonsterMinis]

Just 2 cents from this point of view and experiance..
We maintain a pond of similar dimensions and type, I routinely hold gar (Any of the seven species) in it during summer months. It also has a few forage species in it. Mostly Bluntnose minnows, Long ear suns and Topminnows. It is without fail that after the gar go in there the population of forage species plummets and I need to usually re-stock it once or twice (sometimes more) during the summer to supply appropriate feed sized fish. I really do not think that in a standard type small sized pond without separation that you can sustain a forage base without adding anything regularly.

Would also like to add I have only had crap luck with Musky in ponds like this. Usually do fine until around 15 inches or so (YoY really) and then they just seem to suffer and crash. They are not in my opinion suited for this type system. Grass picks do awesome and Northerns are so-so, They get by but do not seem to really thrive.

x2 I've had the same experiances with pike/musky in captivity... my musky actually killed the NP and It was released into a private pond approx 100' wide and 400' long gigantic oval and deep.. but held an extablished array of LMB and sunfish/warmouth and bullheads. The Musky was caught once the following year.. and not seen to this date in the pond ( that was 10+yrs ago).

and to further answer your question why the gar may be okay and the musky/pike not.. Musky/pike are deep water predetors when they mature.. only when young or dureing the breeding season do these fish come into the shallows. Most game fisherman will tell you if you want to catch a large one of either of these species you need a big deep lake with plenty of bait fish.. and fish off ledges into the deepest parts of the lake.. They "patrol" miles of water. where most gar tend to spend their lives in fairly shallow/weeded areas and maintain the "ambush" predator lifestyle which the pike/musky outgrow in a matter of a year or 2. IMO these reasons are in large part why you do not see large pike or musky in captivity thriveing in all but the largest aquarium institutes in general, or the most dedicated of hobbyists. Musky/pike also require large amounts of clean cool water that is high in O2. Mine where kept in the basement where the summer temps rarely brought the tank out of the low 70's mark.

also if you want something cheap to feed pike/muskys will consume 2x or more food then gar will. at 6"-12" mine where feed approx 300 rosys a week. I worked at a LFS and brought home 150 2x a week.. It was not a cheap food bill.

 

[MonsterMinis]

btw not trying to be a buzz-kill or discourageing.. only rendering my experiances as everyone else is. nothign worse then being told everythign will be okay.. and you spend countless hours and money to keep somethign that isn't situated to begin with.