Introduction
“Many men go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.” – Henry David Thoreau
Fishing (also, hunting and foraging) has been part of the backcountry experience since the dawn of humanity. For some, it connects them to their ancestral roots. For others, it allows them to connect to the natural world on a more visceral level. For me, it’s both the feeling of self-reliance and a deeper appreciation of how nature nourishes us, both metaphorically and physically. In addition, I’ve always been a bit of an adrenaline junkie. And the endorphins (happy hormones) released following the adrenaline rush of catching a big, wary trout have a profound impact on my enjoyment of the backcountry.

In addition to these benefits, fish are a healthy source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and essential vitamins and minerals. Cold water trout, in particular, have unusually high concentrations of vitamins D, E, and A, deficiencies of which can have notable impacts on the performance, recovery, and injury risk to long-distance endurance athletes (source). Admittedly, eating one or two trout per day may have a negligible impact on nutrition or performance during a short backcountry trek. However, it’s well-known that eating cold-water fish, including trout, can have profound positive impacts on one’s long-term nutritional health (assuming they were sourced from pristine and uncontaminated water sources or farms).
Consuming fresh fish in the backcountry can also provide a welcome break for the palate that’s accustomed to dehydrated, freeze-dried, pre-packaged, or processed backpacking foods. Enjoying a plate of fish tacos while watching the alpenglow fade on a nearby wilderness peak is admittedly, one of my guiltiest culinary pleasures in the backcountry.

But fishing requires some additional gear and unique skills. A deeper skill set, and some experience, is essential if the backcountry traveler is going to rely upon it for part of their caloric sustenance.
That’s why debates about the practicality of fishing and its ability to reduce food weight are not uncommon within the community of enthusiasts who call themselves ultralight backpackers. Therefore, the primary purpose of this article is to explore the specific question: can backcountry fishing save carried food weight?
In order to answer this question, I’ll follow this process:
- Calculate the weight of backcountry fishing gear.
- Estimate the probability of catching and eating fish every day.
- Determine the macronutrient content of that fish.
- Evaluate how much carried food weight the caught fish can replace without sacrificing daily nutrition or calorie intake.
- Calculate the number of days required to get a return (eating caught fish) on investment (weight of carried fishing gear).
- Compare these results using conventional, light, and ultralight backcountry fishing kits.
How much does fishing gear weigh?
The basic elements of a fishing kit include the rod, the reel, line (including leader and tippet), and either bait, lures, or flies.
Conventional (Western) Fly Fishing Kit – 2 pounds
For the purpose of this article, we are going to focus on fly fishing. A conventional fly fishing kit includes a fly rod (which is protected in a cloth rod sleeve and carried in a rigid tube), a fly reel, backing line, the fly line, leaders, tippet spools, flies in a fly box, a vest, and a few tools (hemostats, nippers) and supplies (split shot, strike indicators, and floatant). In addition, it’s not uncommon for backcountry anglers to bring a landing net, but they rarely bring wading gear (e.g., waders, wading boots).
In most of my interviews with anglers who practice conventional western fly fishing into the backcountry, the following gear list is representative of their kits:
- Fly rod – 9 ft 5 wt 4pc carried in a cloth rod sock and metal rod tube – 16 oz
- Fly reel – 5 wt with fly line and backing – 5 oz
- Extra leaders and tippet spools – 3 oz
- Flies and boxes – 4 oz
- Tools – 2 oz
- Other supplies – 2 oz
Minimalist (Western) Fly Fishing Kit – 1 pound
A conventional western fly fishing kit can be lightened up by making a number of compromises that would be appropriate for most backcountry fisheries:
- Reduce the length and rated line weight of the rod.
- Reduce the size and line capacity of the fly reel.
- Reduce the length of the fly line and eliminate the backing.
- Replacing plastic fly boxes with foam fly boxes.
- Replacing the vest with a hip pack or other type of pouch for tackle storage.
- Eliminating the landing net.
- Replacing the stock metal rod tube with something less rigid, like a plastic shipping tube with vinyl end caps.
In my experience, I’ve been able to reduce the weight of a western fly fishing kit down to about 12-16 ounces, recognizing that such sacrifices result in the inability to fight extremely large trout, which fortunately, are not common in the backcountry. The reason for this is that I’m carrying a lighter rod, less line, and a smaller reel. In addition, there are some sacrifices made in fly boxes and fly selection, which to be honest, I’ve never found to limit my ability to catch enough fish in the backcountry for reliable meals.
Ultralight (Tenkara) Kits – 0.25 pounds
Finally, at the lighter end of the range, one can assemble a minimalist tenkara fishing kit, which eliminates the weight of a fly reel and fly line.
And at the ultralight end of the spectrum, a tenkara kit can be minimalized to an extreme by including only those essential items required to catch small to medium-sized trout – e.g., rod, line, tippet, and flies.

What is the probability of catching fish every day?
Whether or not you catch fish every day depends not only on you and your skill, but on the level of cooperation of the fish! Specifically, the probability that you catch a fish will depend on you finding the fish, the fish wanting to eat, and you being able to catch the fish.

Whether or not you find fish depends in part on your skill, and in part on whether or not there are fish in the area where you are hiking. The latter can be mitigated by doing research prior to your trip. Fishing reports from local fly shops, trip reports from backcountry users, and stocking reports (or fish population inventories or surveys) from land and fisheries management agencies can all be used to determine which lakes and streams are most likely to support populations of fish. Once you have identified a water body that houses fish, then your skills come into play. Understanding where fish lie and feed in the waterbody makes your fishing efforts more efficient. Otherwise, you may just be casting into water in the hopes of catching a fish that may never show up.

Fish feed in response to a variety of conditions. Seasonality, environmental conditions and the activity of food sources are the two most important. Sunlight (or cloud cover), wind, barometric pressure, lunar phases, water temperature, and air temperature may have an impact on both the activity of food sources and whether or not fish will feed on them. In one of my favorite headwater streams in the Montana Beartooths, I know with almost absolute certainty that calm, sunny, fall afternoons result in a Dicosmoecus gilvipes (October Caddis) hatch that makes trout go into a feeding frenzy.
Finally, once you’ve found the fish and are confident that they’ll eat, you still have to present your line, leader, and fly to the fish so as not to spook it and have them sense that you’re a predator. And assuming you hook a trout that takes your fly, you have one more step ahead of you: land the fish so you know that it’s going to make it into your cooking pan!
How much nutrition does trout meat provide?
Now that you’ve caught your fish, let’s figure out how much nutrition it can provide. The following table shows the relationship between the size of a trout, how much edible meat can be harvested from it, and the macronutrient profile of that meat.
| Length (inches) | Weight (ounces) | Edible Meat Weight (ounces) | Protein (g) | Fat (g) | Carbohydrates (g) | Calories |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0 | 24 |
| 8 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 7.6 | 3.8 | 0 | 57 |
| 10 | 5.2 | 2.6 | 14.7 | 7.4 | 0 | 111 |
| 12 | 9 | 4.5 | 25.5 | 12.7 | 0 | 191 |
| 14 | 14.3 | 7.1 | 40.5 | 20.2 | 0 | 304 |
| 16 | 21.3 | 10.7 | 60.4 | 30.2 | 0 | 453 |
Assumptions:
- Weight is estimated based on the popular cubic formula used in fisheries science to estimate the weight of average-proportioned rainbow trout, i.e., weight (g) = 0.009 * length (cm) ^ 3.
- Edible meat weight is estimated as 50% of the total fish weight for trout.
- Macronutrient content is estimated as 20% protein, 10% fat, and negligible carbohydrates.

How much carried food weight can caught fish replace?
This question can be answered using the previous table (above) as a reference.
My normal backpacking diet has a caloric density of about 120 Calories per ounce, and a macronutrient profile of approximately 20% protein, 50% fats, and 30% carbohydrates.
For the purpose of this discussion, I’ll focus primarily on Calories. Since I’m consuming trout for only one meal of my day, I usually try to catch a hearty portion for a meal, i.e., four 10-inch fish (444 Calories) or some combination of larger and smaller trout that provide me with 400 to 500 Calories.
To keep the math simple, let’s assume I’m targeting 480 Calories for my trout meal. That means I might leave 480 Calories out of my packaged (dry) backpacking meals, which equates to about four ounces of dry food.

How many days of eating fish for one meal a day is required to get a return (eating caught fish) on investment (weight of carried fishing gear)?
The answer to that question depends on the weight of my fishing kit. Here’s a case study from a recent 10-day summer wilderness trek in Colorado, where I ate an average of one hearty trout meal per day (480 Calories).
My fishing kit included the following:
- tenkara rod – 2.7 oz
- line, tippet, fly on a card x 2 – 0.2 oz
- 5x tippet spool – 0.2 oz
- nippers / hemostats on neck cord – 1.3 oz
- foam box with flies – 1.0 oz
- tackle pouch – 1.1 oz
Summary:
- Total weight of fishing kit = 6.6 oz = 0.41 lb
- Total dry packaged food weight left behind = 9 days x 480 Calories/day / 120 Calories/ounce = 36 oz = 2.25 lb
- Total weight of spices and carbs (e.g., dry potatoes) added back for cooking fish = 1 oz/day x 9 Â days = 9 oz = 0.56 lb
Total Net Weight Savings = 0.41 lb + 0.56 lb – 2.25 lb = 1.28 lb

This is not a substantial amount of weight savings over the course of a 10 day trek. For sustenance alone, it would be somewhat difficult to justify. For the backcountry hiker that doesn’t find any entertainment or meditative value in fishing, the time spent fishing, dealing with gear, cleaning and cooking fish, etc., won’t be worth the savings of a pound or two.
However, it’s refreshing to discover that not only can you save pack weight by bringing a fishing kit, you can also have all of the benefits that come with fishing (as described in the introduction to this article).
Keep in mind that the analysis in this section involves a relatively lightweight kit based on a tenkara-style fishing rod. This, of course, is one of the most compelling reasons to fish tenkara in the backcountry.
The following chart illustrates a case study showing different starting pack weights for 3, 7, 14, and 21-day treks for different types of fishing kits.
Assumptions:
- Base weight = 12 pounds.
- Fishing kit weights: none (0 pounds), ultralight (0.25 pounds), light (1.0 pounds), conventional (2.0 pounds).
- Food weight is 1.5 pounds per day for the case where no fishing kit is carried, and 1.25 pounds per day for the cases when a fishing kit is carried, based on the assumption that the angler will catch and consume approximately 480 Calories per day of fish, which would be equivalent to saving about 4 ounces per day of dry food (if average dry food caloric density is 120 Calories per ounce).
Conclusions from the chart above:
- The difference in total starting pack weight for non-fishing and fishing case studies increases as trek duration increases.
- For short trips (e.g., 3 days), only the ultralight (tenkara) fishing kit makes it worth the added weight of a fishing kit.
- For long trips (e.g., 21 days), carrying an ultralight (tenkara) fishing kit can save as much as five pounds off the total starting pack weight.
Conclusion
Fishing isn’t for everyone. In terms of a backcountry activity, fishing is similar to photography or painting or climbing a snowy couloir in that it may (or may not) be the primary focus of a backcountry expedition, but requires additional gear to enjoy the activity.
However, unlike other ancillary backcountry activities, fishing has the potential to impact your pack weight by reducing the amount of carried food weight. The purpose of this article was to illustrate that point using a quantitative analysis.
For me, I’m a passionate fishing enthusiast, and am particularly passionate about tenkara-style fishing. Using an ultralight tenkara-style fishing kit allows me to not only enjoy that activity in the backcountry, but also to maximize the amount of benefit that comes from reducing carried food weight without adding much extra gear weight.
Finally, when thinking about the questions “can backcountry fishing save carried food weight?” and “can backcountry fishing provide me with a high level of enjoyment that makes it worth the weight of extra gear?” I always gravitate back toward the venn diagram above that asks:
- Can you find fish?
- Does the fish want to eat?
- Can you catch the fish?
Inherent in the answers to each of these three questions is the presumption that you have some level of skill as a backcountry angler. Gaining angling skills and experience can be difficult. Western fly fishing is intimidating, and requires an enormous amount of casting practice and study to be proficient at it. This is part of why I like tenkara fishing. It’s not only lighter, but it’s simpler and easier. In addition, the skills barriers required to become a very proficient tenkara angler come with less practice and less experience. This was a large part of my motivation to develop the new Backcountry Tenkara Masterclass. My hope is that experienced anglers see the benefits of tenkara and can transition quickly and easily, and that new anglers achieve tenkara casting and fishing skills quickly.

Recommendations
- Learn about tenkara gear, skills, and tactics in the new Backcountry Tenkara Fishing Masterclass
- Shop tenkara rods, lines, accessories, and flies at Tenkara USA
Related Content
- Article: Tenkara Fishing Rods and Gear for Backpacking
- Gear List:Â Tenkara Fly Fishing
- Podcast Episodes: Tenkara Fishing and the 12 Steps of Tenkara

Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
Companion forum thread to: Can backcountry fishing save carried food weight?
This article explores the benefits of backcountry fishing (especially tenkara), including the incorporation of fish in your diet and potential food weight savings.
My fondest memory of backpacking with my father was a five day trip that he was teaching me to use a fly rod. He brought some trail mix for snacks, some spices, some oil (or maybe it was gee… it was 50 years ago) for when he wanted use frying pan rather than a small grate, and some fresh veggies. Â He was quite skilled. Â Breakfast and dinner were freshly caught trout. Â Lunch was fish from the morning that he prepared during breakfast for the hike. Â It was marvelous. Never got tired. When I returned years later with friends we brought food because we aren’t so skilled, but certainly caught enough fish to offset the weight of the fishing gear.
Wow, great article! Still, every fisherman wishes they could know, in advance, whether or not they would catch a fish today. While I would prefer a trout or salmon, I would carry a stick of pepperoni just in case. :)
This could be just me, but I would be interested in discussion of lightweight fishing alternatives rather than just Tenkara. I know that Tenkara is a whole ultralight sport thing, but spin-casting or even just a line from your survival kit work fine. As you say, it comes down to the fish’s cooperation.
I would go mini spincasting especially Diawa mini systems.
https://daiwa.us/products/mini-systems
can you just take some line and a hook and manually throw it into the water?
So I don’t necessarily want to start a fight, but I’d like this community’s opinions on a subject with which I’m struggling:
Backcountry fishing seems to be a clear violation of LNT principles. I define a LNT violation as, “if everyone else who comes here does the same act I’m considering, how devastating will the effect be for the environment?” If everyone who hikes the JMT takes a fish per campsite, there will be almost no fish left in the backcountry. (This is based on the premise that most JMT lakes are not stocked, but I’m not sure that’s true.)
My hiking partner and I once caught two fish at Upper Boy Scout Lake while exhausted, and the resulting fish stew was one of the best-tasting and most-appreciated meals of my life. But since then, I’ve reconsidered how ethical it was to fish those waters, and I’ve hypothesized that it’s an unsustainable practice.
How can we preach LNT, no campfires in fragile habitats, ect., but still ethically partake in backcountry fishing?
Jerry: Almost. You’ll need bait of some kind, and optionally a float to suspend the bait. Maybe a sinker to keep things straight. Or just throw and reel/pull. Without a reel, the hardest part is managing the line to prevent tangles. You can wrap the line around a stick or something. A stick can also be rigged as a makeshift pole to facilitate positioning (or un-sticking) your lure.
KA-bar even makes a pocket-size gizmo to help the job, although it is no more than a convenience. The basics are not too difficult; but the fine points can take a lifetime. Or, well, a while anyway.
Keith: That’s why fishermen get properly licensed by the state’s Fish and Game Commission, which sets rules and limits to manage fishing.
Dan: Cool. Thanks.
Â
If you don’t use any gear and don’t cook the fish, it’s all saved weight!
It only saves weight if you left food behind. Meaning you’ll be hungry if aren’t successful. IME, being assured of that requires one of two things:
Be really far off the beaten path (and have decent skills) or
Have fabulous skills. I led trips in the Sierra with a guy who could think like a fish. The clients would return to camp telling of how they hooked 2 or 3 and landed 1 or 2. Ron wouldn’t say anything. When asked if he went fishing, he’d just say “yes”. If asked if he caught any, he’d just say “yes”. Only if asked “How many fish did you catch?” would he mumble “About 60.”
For most people, it’s fishing. For a few people and places, it’s catching.
I caught and ate a fish once, probably just a line and hook, I think I used a salmonberry as bait
Once I got a hook stuck in me and I couldn’t get it out without help from medical person so I’ve sort of been down on fishing since. Fearful of people wildly casting fishhooks into the water.
Maybe if I got tired of walking, fishing would be a good pastime.
Maybe I could go Gollum and just use grab fish with hands.
I backcountry fish while backpacking in waters where a 10 lb pike or 5 lb bass isn’t so rare.  The mini systems don’t cut it for that. My trusty old Symetre finally bit the dust so after long searching I went with Shimano Ultegra FC 2500. This offered the lightest weight in high quality model that had a collapsible handle, a must have for cutting through brush. The rod is Bass Pro Shops telescoping fishing rod 6’6″ med + gear tie. I’ve landed 20lb musky with this thing, it takes a beating. It can also be partially collapsed with a piece of duct tape to cast between trees on the shoreline. I carry a few light lures in a ziplock
All in its light by fishing standards at 13 oz, if heavy by BPL standards. But no lighter rig exists that I can find that’ll handle 20lb sport fish, packs down to very little in a backpack side pocket, is streamlined enough to bushwack with, high quality and casts long distances through narrow openings between trees and bush side arm or underarm. [Edit: and can collapse, a must while cliff scrambling between tight spots without the pack]. I’m open to lighter suggestions, but that’s a tough wish list and haven’t found anything better! It’s worked really well for me and a weight penalty I’ll gladly take as fishing while backpacking is my happy place.
I don’t eat fish on trail. I often lake hop through the day & carrying fillets in my backpack for an extended period in the sun sounds like GI Russian roulette.  I also try to be very careful about keeping fish smells off my gear to not attract night visitors
Do the new findings about the level of PFAs in wild fish give anyone pause? https://www.ehn.org/pfas-in-fish-2659101814.html
I once camped with a guy who always caught fish, he said. He’d collect bait on the way in to a lake–in this instance, grasshoppers that were everywhere. Whatever was crawling or hopping about. Then, he’d cast a line with a floater/weight way into the lake. Then he’d leave the pole upright on the shore and walk away. He’d come back in thirty minutes or more and usually have a fish hooked. He let me share his meal and it really was good.
I don’t see many people fishing out backpacking. Surprising in a way. Given the trout were planted in most high Sierra lakes, and aren’t native, the ethics are complex.
I grew up fishing in streams in the north Cascades. I think the limit in those days was 12 or 15 trout. there were often 6 people fishing those streams in our group. Lots of people were out fishing those streams every day–this was around Stehekin in Wa. So the easy pools were always fished out in September, when we’d go. We’d still mange to catch our limit each day. My relatives and family would fish for four days straight, taking hundreds of fish. Somehow the trout didn’t go extinct. Nowadays the limit is much lower, thankfully.
My experience of trying to cast a fly out into a lake without a weight was a disaster. The slightest wind would blow the fly back. It was impossible to get it out more than a few feet from shore.
I’ve always thought if you plan on depending on caught fish you were guaranteeing you would be skunked. I bring enough food, without the fish, to improve my fishing odds.
Ben I think that is how it works. Also the best way to avoid bear problems is to hike with a rifle and a hunting license…. to bad rifles are heavy.
LNT is definitely a practice I religiously follow but as the majority of the the High Sierra lakes and streams had no indigenous salmonids, only amphibians, and the import of salmonids extirpated the indigenous anurans, especially Rana Sierrae, I consider it a benefit to catch and eat as many fish as I can. Of course leaving behind any line or lures in the water is not acceptable. I am curious as to what the proper procedure for the fish entrails is though. I usually bury them near a tree.
>Do the new findings about the level of PFAs in wild fish give anyone pause?
I grew up eating a ton of Lake St Clair and Kawartha Lakes Walleye in the 70s and 80s.  We followed fishery guidelines at the time, favouring smaller fish over larger, limiting consumption to guidelines. This is a bit scary.
Great example of how nutritional guidelines may be barely worth wrapping fish with
Best practice for fish entrails in the High Sierra is not to bury but throw them back into the lake/stream.
Recommendations are regional but up here it’s usually to throw them into deep water
Thanks for the clarification.
I actually went ‘full Gollum’ hiking the JMT years ago… nice big trout caught with my bare hands… read how to do this in a fishing book… worked first time!… see fish trapped in small shallow pond (drought year in the fall)… wade in… fish gets scared and hides in bank undercut… move slowly… stir up bottom to muddy the water and that confused the fish’s senses… slowly reach under until you can feel his fins treading water… squeeze HARD AND FAST… pull the fish out and throw him up on the bank… it’s a pretty savage !!! the rest is like all other fishing… yum… I was tired, hungry and out of food… my cache was the next day…
Yes, DWR D, I have done that many long years ago in Chiquito Creek which is one of the minor tributaries of the San Joaquin flowing into Mammoth Pool Reservoir. Same technique: wade into a shallow pool, muddy it up, and then start feeling around under rocks. I was only 15 at the time but I remember it well.
High lake/backcountry fishing is my passion and somehow I managed to miss this article when it came out. Hence, the late reply.
The minimal western kit in the article could be improved. The most important thing to do is to carry a 6-piece rod that completely fits in your pack which will then serve as your rod case. This will shave both weight and bulk.
I agree with the basic premise of the article that some weight in food can be saved, but not enough to offset a western-style fishing kit, especially if you are carrying a raft as I would be (20 oz plus 3 oz for paddles). Our typical formula is to carry enough freeze dried meals to cover half rations for every night of the trip and to assume we will eat fish on half the nights. We would always have enough food to have a freeze-dried meal every night even if we didn’t catch a single fish on the trip and every night we eat fish for dinner gives us an evening of full freeze-dried rations.
The ethics of keeping fish were brought up in comments. Most of the key points have been addressed, but I’ll try to do a brief summary. The vast majority of high lake fish in the lower 48 are not native. There is no ethical reason not to keep them beyond leaving some for other anglers to catch. As soon as fish are introduced to high lakes they become the top predator in the lake. Typically, they would be supplanting amphibians as the top predator, but not all high lakes are good amphibian habitat. Studies in North Cascades National Park found that trout introduced in low densities would co-exist with native biota. Where problems occurred (amphibians extirpated, zooplankton communities altered) it was generally because the fish were stocked too heavily or they were able to naturally reproduce and overpopulate lakes. Stocking should be periodic with low densities to both preserve native biota and to provide quality fish.
For those not in the know, states now raise fish in hatcheries and then transport them to various lakes, streams, etc.. to sell fishing licenses with some species off-limits.  At a certain point they are transported by various means to backcountry streams and let go into the flow (not to mention lakes).  Not sure all these populations are completely “natural” but fishing is popular.  The fish are caught throughout their lifecycle and, if consumed, some prefer smaller fish like trout .. others bigger.
Bottom line: the state isn’t going to run out of fish, and anyways, there’s no refund on fishing licenses if catching nothing.
I was recently in the BWCA and was not interested in eating fish due to the likely very high levels of PFOS PFOA. I just found this map with actual local samples, so this may be good to review to see if the area has generally higher or lower contamination.
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_US_fish/map/
Unfortunately nothing from the sierras, but just looking at random samples across the country, none of them are “low contamination”
Become a member to post in the forums.