It's called fishing, not catching Hunting, not meat on the table. How long of a trip would you need to take to make up for the weight of the rifle, and how much food would you be willing to gamble, on what is supposed to be a vacation not a survival situation? It's a gamble.

Yeah, I have gone back and forth on both a fishing kit and a hunting kit for my AZT thru hike starting in March. Here's where I'm at right now:

Fishing Kit: This is only useful in times where I'm not moving (ie at camp or on a zero day) therefore I may bring the most basic (hook, line, sinker, and bobber) kit to add extra activity to our trip, and if I don't use it, and find the 1.5 ounces too much, I won't feel bad tossing it in the trash at a trail town.

Hunting Kit: I can use this while on the move. Have a .22 pistol with first round of snake shot and the rest regular loads. This allows me to at least wing a bird or hit a smaller animal on the move out to about 25 or 30 feet and then throw lead further if I need to. I'm still undecided on holster/no holster as to the extra weight, I think I'll just carry it in the side pocket of my pack where I can reach it if I need to but the common hiker passing by wont think I'm trying to be Rambo with a gun on my hip.

I will probably carry a extra small stuff sack in the pocket with the pistol and upon a kill, I'll quickly field dress the animal, throw it in the stuff sack and continue on to camp where I can enjoy the fresh meat.

Any thoughts/ideas on what I'm hoping to do? Please don't respond if your blood pressure raised while you read this, I don't want to defend what is legal

For years, before I quit fishing, I supplemented my diet with fish on trips up to 17 days in the Sierra. It can definitely be done. I also used to hunt, but gave it up long ago, the point being I know what it takes to find, kill, dress out and prepare game and am thus qualified to at least offer an opinion. I think, in the context of trekking fishing is the better option whenever fishing is an option. It will usually be less time consuming, IME, less problematic in that you do not have to worry about where your round will carry or whether there are other people around to freak out, etc., equipment is lighter, there are far more places where you can fish that are also prime hiking venues. Probably more reasons but these should be enough to get my point across.

One of the advantages of fishing for food vs hunting for food while hiking is that the fish are confined to a small, easily located environment, while grouse, squirrels, rabbits and other small game are much more widely distributed, and thus usually harder to locate.

Second, when we fish, we attract the fish to our hook; when we hunt, we have to go find the prey ourselves.

Very different food gathering techniques!

Tom,

Agree on the fishing. Actually in the 1960's (for me) it was possible to make trout a mainstay of your diet in many parts of the Sierras. This is no longer true.

"Actually in the 1960's (for me) it was possible to make trout a mainstay of your diet in many parts of the Sierras. This is no longer true."

So true, Nick. There are still a few places where there a lot of fish(I don't fish anymore, but I enjoy watching them), but they're a lot fewer and farther between.
BTW, did you ever get to Crabtree Lakes back in the day?

Tom,

Back in the day... you mean the days before back country permits and hordes of people? Like hiking up Whitney with no permit required? Yep.

When I was young and had no responsibilities or bills, I often would start at Kernville and go up to the Whitney area. Of course I would have to make it down to Horsehoe Meadows and hitch a ride down into Lone Pine for supplies. Then it was back up to Horsehoe Meadow-to-Whitney (I think this is where I would hit the crabtree lakes) and then and a return trip to Kernville. I think I have been at nearly every lake and stream on the Kern Plateau and Whitney area. And of course this is the area I was referring to with my "trout was a mainstay" comment. I don't fish much anymore either.

However around 1970 I caught 5 species of trout one afternoon below the Forks of the Kern. Rainbow, German Brown, Brook, Golden, and a Kokane Salmon. Didn't know what the Kokanee was, so I hauled it around for a couple of days until a ranger on horseback identified it for me.

I miss those days.

Edited by ngatel on 12/06/2009 18:02:36 MST.

"Back in the day... you mean the days before back country permits and hordes of people? Like hiking up Whitney with no permit required? Yep.

Yep.

Sounds like our territories have quite a bit of overlap. I didn't get down in the Kern south of Rattlesnake Creek, but doggone near everywhere north of there on up to Volcano Lakes on the north side of the road going to Roads End.

Yeah, if you went from Horseshoe Meadow to Whitney, you probably would've gone via Sky Blue Lake and Crabtree Pass at least to Upper Crabtree Lake before heading up that awesome scree slope to pop onto the main trail just east of Trail Crest Pass. The best fishing, though, was at Middle Crabtree Lake. Some of the best I've ever found. It was easy to live off fishing there, ditto the entire Upper Kern Basin back then.

To this day I wouldn't know a Kokanee if I saw one. 5 species in one day-that must have been quite an experience.

I miss those days too. Never had it better in the Sierra.

I'm glad Ryan had the guts to pursue a test that would end up being so controversial. I believe it was an appropriate addition to this website. Interesting, informative and very well done. Since I am now primarily a bowhunter, maybe I'll submit an article about backpacking with a lightweight longbow.

How much would a long bow and a couple of arrows weigh?

I’m a fan of Martin/Howatt traditional bows. The Stick Longbow and a couple of carbon arrows may weigh around a pound. Note… longbows typically shoot heavier arrows better, though. Also, the required skill needed to hunt ethically/efficiently with a traditional bow vs. a gun is much greater.

http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Stick+Longbow/part_number=ML9/189.0.1.1.2466.0.0.0.0?

Edited by rogerhomrich on 12/07/2009 14:35:52 MST.

A light weight long bow or recurve bow is going to weigh at least a pound with out arrows. Recurves from the 50s and 60s with a draw weight of 40#s or less are going to keep you closer to the one pound mark though. Long bows usually weigh more.

Yeah, I don't posses the skills needed to bow hunt. I would be better off with a slingshot and rocks.

Brady,

I would stick with your original idea of the .22 pistol.

Bow Thoughts

I thought about the idea of a bow while hiking but they are not a quick thing to get ready in case you jump an animal and they take alot of time and practice to get good with.

I have been bow hunting for 4 years now and I like to think I am a really good shot, but all of these have been in controlled enivronments where the game has walked in on me (using a compound bow with sites)

I would not rely on my abilities using a bow while trying to cover mileage during the day.

For those familiar with .22LR pistols for hunting small game, what are some models I should consider? Has anyone tried the North American Arms mini revolver? At 4.5 oz it's quite light and reasonably cheap compared to the S&W 317. But I do want to be able to hit something at a reasonable distance, maybe 10 - 20 yards.

"But I do want to be able to hit something at a reasonable distance, maybe 10 - 20 yards."

I've shot the mini master with 4 inch barrel and bigger grips, at 10oz I was impressed with what I could do with it. I'd say you could be good with it at 10-20 yards. On the other hand, I felt the 4.5oz version with 1.625" barrel and smaller grips was much harder to shoot, and had a more limited range. But I'm pretty sure with some practice one could get pretty good with it, out to about 15 yrds. Not too many other pistols come to mind.

First, I'm really impressed that Josh would even mention these pistols, given he's the guy making the Pak-Rifle. Kudos! I haven't shot any of these, but it seems that if you wanted the most reliability at range, the rifle would be a better choice. The rifle's 6-ounces heavier than the 10-oz pistol... pretty darn light...

I tried to post on the review forum comments, but that section is closed to posting.

The one question in particular I have about the rifle might be pretty stupid, but is the durability of the action. Obviously firearms of wide-ranging quality exist, and shotguns are exposed to a lot more "shock" forces (for lack of a better term), but I've handled a number of break-opens with sloppy actions. Now, I know parts of the Pak-Rifle are cromoly and stainless, and I know that the .22 round won't have as much impact on the rifle system as a whole. And this obviously isn't a workhorse rifle... but the aluminum housing? Josh has been making variations of these for years and has settled on this, so I'm guessing it's plenty durable? My guess is that you'd have to shoot thousands of rounds before you noticed anything? Any feedback? Seems like something that would be perfectly fine on a multi-month trip?

Thanks for the comments Josh. I like the pak rifle idea. And no doubt a rifle will have significantly better accuracy then any pistol. The price tag is my problem. Given I've never hunted and don't now if I'll like it, $500 is a steep buy in. I don't suppose you have a loaner you'd like to send me? :)

Edit: The price of the pak rifle is actually $425. Josh, kindly corrected me below.

Edited by nschmald on 12/08/2009 15:18:01 MST.

The pistol I have right now is a Hi-Standard Duramatic, without a case and with a full clip it weighs 32 oz on my scale. I am definitely interested in looking at lighter guns but would need to target practice before taking them on the trip. The duramatic I've shot and am quite accurate with.

Josh, Have you shot the CCI shotshells through your rifles?