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.
I am working on a (very long) writeup covering relatively unknown Spinning rods and reels in the the 5.5-7oz range combined. They should allow for a complete Spinning kit in the 7-9oz range.
That should be interesting, Piney, I’m looking forward to seeing that. I bought a new spinning reel a couple years ago and had a lot of trouble finding a small, lightweight reel that had switchable anti-reverse. Almost all of them have the anti-reverse permanently on and I really need to be able to switch mine off because I like to be completely in control when I’m fighting large fish. I bought a Quantum which was, like every Quantum reel I’ve purchased over the years, garbage. I ended up with one from a company I hadn’t heard of called Lew’s. It has been a good reel.
I’m a bit weird and fish my spinning reel off a fly rod.
Mitchel 308, made in France, my favorite.
Brian, that’s definitely an issue – anti-reverse switches have been phased out with the new generation of sub-5oz 1000 size reels. It is still a feature on the 22 Shimano Soare XR 500spg, its’ predecessors, and the US market Vanford 500. Also on a variety of cheaper Aliexpress reels built on a specific body. The Lews Laser Lite 50 (and previous Wally Marshall Signature) are by far the best reels built on that body – Lews refined them considerably.
That Shimano looks very nice. I’m pretty sure I automatically filtered $250 reels right out of any consideration when I was looking. But that reel is very tempting. You might cost me some money.
I used to have a reel with a folding bail. There was a catch that could be pressed in so the bail would fold flat down to the body of the reel. I really wish someone would bring that feature back.
Dan-Y, I learned to fish with a Mitchell 300 so I have fond memories of those reels.
Same here, started with the 300.
I’ve lived off of trout in Big Sur and catfish in Lake Tahoe. More so a matter of economics. When I lived on the central coast, the day would involve digging clams at dusk, catching snapper off of the pier in the morning while dropping a crab net. I’ve found trout in the headwaters of Whitewater in southern cal where there should have been none. A friend did catch one on a string and dug up worms. They were tiny though. I wouldn’t count on fish in the backcountry unless I knew the spots. Chances are if you do find fish, like in whitewater, they’re struggling.
Brian made some excellent points here. I tend to catch and release when backpacking, but occasionally I will keep a fish or two to eat. That’s happened twice in past six or seven years.
But one point missing from this discussion is the actual food value of the fish. Most fish in the high country are not fat, nor are they large. By the time you clean a 12 inch trout (which is pretty good sized for the High Sierra) you’re not going to get more than a couple hundred calories.
There used to be a survival test back in the 1970’s that asked if it made more sense to stay a few days catching fish and “beefing up” or whether it would be better to hike out on a relatively empty stomach. The correct answer, due to the low fat content of the trout, was to start hiking.
That 308 brings back fond memories. My first reel over 50 years ago was a Mitchell 300 and it had many hundreds of hours of use before it finally expired. My father’s 300 was from the 60’s and it never stopped working. They were tanks though, very heavy and hard on the wrist when casting buzz or crank baits for long periods, but very fine for trolling. Smooth drag for the era.
Piney, looking forward to your list, thanks for taking the time to put that together. For me, a 6:1 retrieve, folding handle, strong water repellency and ability to confidently handle 15lb fish are must haves & it’ll be interesting to see what else is out there in smaller brands.
David, there is only one sub-5oz reel I’m aware of that fits that criteria – the KastKing Kestrel. Fortunately it happens to be one of the best reels I’ve had in-hand, and one I will be personally carrying on trips. Weight on that reel can range between 130.8 grams and 135.4 grams depending on where you purchase it and how you set up. Feel free to PM me for those details if you would like them in advance of my full list/post.
This has been a good reel. Around 7 ounces though for 6.2:1
Daiwa Ballistic LT Spinning Reel
https://daiwa.us/products/new-ballistic-mq-lt
Piney, PM sent but the PM messaging is acting haunted, stuff is disappearing and reappearing. Please PM if you don’t see my message.
Daiwa 6106 Â MF baitcaster. 4.6 oz.
With case 15.5 oz.
All you need is a 12 foot rod with 24 feet of line……easy peasy. No reel needed. Make your favorite fish soup, use your favorite seasoning, water cooked in your favorite titanium pot.
It’s hard to cook water. I usually burn it. It doesn’t work at all on the grill.
Stay outta the back country.
Why? I just bring instant, then I cold soak.
Anyway, you’re getting silly .
My thoughts on a couple of points made above.
I was annoyed to find out that they are starting to discontinue the ant-reverse selector. Proponents claim there is no reason for them now that drags are so improved and you don’t need to back-reel. I always turned anti-reverse off while I was fishing and re-engaged it when I hooked the lure/hook to the keeper. I have had times when I needed to back reel when a larger than anticipated fish hit and made hard run.
Mitchell 300 & 308. I have 2 of each. Both my Dad and I had one of each from back in the day. Cleaned them all up about a year ago. They’re just not the quality of today’s reels. Handle is too short and at an odd angle, reel is too heavy for today’s non-fiberglass rods and the catch that Brian misses to fold the bail down also prevents you from manually closing the bail by hand.
Even though I’m going to lose the anti-reverse selection capabilities, I’ll take today’s reels (spinning or bait casting) over any reels from the 70s-90s. I did find a previous year model Pflueger at academy with anti-reverse.
I’ve had good luck on eBay buying used. You can find models a couple years old on the Japanese market as well.
William, as far as I recall from my old Mitchell 300s their bails wouldn’t fold. The reel with the folding bail was a Shakespeare Sigma that I probably used in the 80s. Its bail could be manually closed.
Like you, I prefer to back-reel with a big fish and not cede control to the reel.
Dan-Y, the simplicity and light weight of a tenkara set up certainly has appeal, but in most of the backcountry fishing I do, which is almost all lakes, it is not the best setup to catch fish.
Do you have more control with a spinning reel or a bait caster? I do have my preferences. A question to the more experienced . Why would I choose one over the other?
You can in some situations have more control with a bait caster. But with the very light offerings used in most backcountry fishing opportunities, spinning typically works better as a one size fits all system.
I used to do a great deal of backpacking that was only done to get to high mountain lakes. It’s not that I didn’t like backpacking, but fishing was the primary objective. This changed when they started managing the lakes differently. Instead of planting fish in many high lakes by carrying them in on volunteers backs, they switched to managing them for native species. So amphibians became the priority, resulting in not planting trout, and I understand this completely.
So I went back to mainly targeting salmon, trout and steelhead, somewhat obsessively.
Now I fish far less, but hike and backpack as often as possible. I don’t think I’ve purposely backpacked in to fish a high mountain lake in 30 years.
Some good points. I’ve only seen fingerlings in the backcountry. Even then I think somebody planted them for their own use or a few wild fish made their way up after a wet season.
I do use a spinning rod on a ML setup. 11.5 ounces.
Fishing is my excuse to sit and stare at the water.
Become a member to post in the forums.