I suspect this may devolve into a flamewar ... which I don't want to happen. I'm trying to tread lightly here :-P

That said.

I've never hunted before. I don't have any problem eating meat especially if done sustainably, ethically, within regulation/season.

I was thinking about doing a long trek in Denali and was thinking about hunting during the trek.

I want to target smaller game which are sustainable. Food for 1-2 days.

I'm an avid fisherman and always practice sustainable fish harvesting.

Has anyone done this before? How did it work out?

That being said, expect your daily mileage to drop. If you're spending time hunting, you're not spending time hiking. As long as that's okay with you (and you follow local regulations regarding small game), have at it! I'd love to hear how it works out.

However, it might be worth fishing instead of hunting. Since you already know where to look for fish and have the skill set associated with catching them, you won't be trying to find protein using unfamiliar skills. You might see a larger return on that versus hunting. On the other hand, that's very dependent upon your route choices, seeing as how fish aren't commonly found on dry trails...

I don't think hunting is legal in Denali but it could be done in other areas of Alaska. I think combining hunting/fishing with backpacking could be a very interesting trip but it would be different.

If you were planning a trip you'd have to somehow balance time and energy spent hunting with time spent hiking. To much hunting and you won't hike far, not enough hunting and you'd be better off swapping the gun for a couple extra meals.

Ultimately I don't think hunting or fishing for food would help you hike longer but it might be a very interesting experience.

Hunting takes considerable time and skill, and small animals have less meat on them than you think. If you want your trip to be a hunting experience like an old-timey trapper expedition, that may be what you want (I'm not knocking it; that could be a very interesting premise for a trip). However, if you want your hike to be about sightseeing, covering long distances, or photography, the time it would take to successfully provide a portion of your diet by hunting would severely curtail those other aspects of your trip.

If the typical UL backpacker is carrying roughly 1.5 to 2 pounds of food per day (that's my standard) and a rifle, ammo, and whatever you need to dress game weighs 7 pounds (which is pretty light for a full kit), you could carry an extra 3-5 days worth of food for the same weight, save yourself the trouble and mess of killing, gutting, and skinning/plucking things, and spend more time on your back watching clouds.

Check first to make sure you're eligible for hunting in Denali - http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/hunting.htm

Even if you are, frankly I recommend against it. As a lifelong Alaskan, I've learned that hunting/fishing is a hit and miss affair and that's fine so long as I've got a grocery store to run to when I strike out. Not so good if you are depending on animals for food.

If you really wanted to give hiking and hunting a try take a look at the Pack Rifle. Its basically a one pound .22 rifle that can be taken down and put in a pack. That and some ammo would be light enough for what we might call "Oppurtunistic Lightweight Hunting" i.e. hiking and hunting if you see something.
With a more traditional gun I think it makes more sense to pick one or the other. Either go hunting or go backpacking.

The time spent hunting will probably consume more food than it provides, or at the very least, be unbelievably time inefficient.


I don't know what sort of tools you're imagining that will be lighter than another 2 days worth of food. Even if you go with something like snares, you're going to spend a day setting up 10+ snares, wait the night, check them all, find possibly 0-2 catches, clean and cook them?


Game hunting isn't exactly something you can just start doing out of the blue. It takes significant skill like anything else.

"If the typical UL backpacker is carrying roughly 1.5 to 2 pounds of food per day (that's my standard) "

Thats fine if your taking that but iv'e found manys UL to be packing slightly less at 1.25 - 1.75

+1 on fishing, I would imagine its pretty hard to catch a squirell. And catching a chicken or something just seems like too much work IF you are on the move.

"If the typical UL backpacker is carrying roughly 1.5 to 2 pounds of food per day (that's my standard) "

"Thats fine if your taking that but iv'e found manys UL to be packing slightly less at 1.25 - 1.75"

That does seem to emphasize slightly. Isn't the difference between 1.75 and 2.0 a 14% increase? If you have a hiker at say 150 lbs and 175 lbs, that would seem to be about the same thing to me. Let alone a hiker at 130 vs a hiker at 190 lbs.

I don't think you'll ever lighten your load by hunting. Maybe if you really like squirrel. Fishing, maybe.

Kevin,

As a 5-generation Urban Northern California now in my 14th year in Alaska, I've transtitioned from being expert at foraging in grocery store + wild plants to being an ever more competent hunter-gatherer. My path included:

Friends and strangers giving me tips on fishing, reading a few books and trying different places at different times.

Participating in the Personal-use Fishery (for Alaskan residents only) for my 30+ salmon each year.

Having a friend with boat, a motor and local knowledge who takes my family along on fishing trips (I bring a great lunch, happily pay for all the gas, and bait more hooks and fillet more fish than anyone else (i.e. I'm the kind of guy you want on the boat).

More recently, I've been drafted on hunting trips because of my stunningly gorgeous legs. Or rather, that I can hike a lot and be a cheerful companion. After one has shot an elk, a few bears or a mess of caribou, the work really starts. Capable sherpas are very desireable and, in my experience, get the same share of fillets, burger and sausage as any hunter along.

But, to save weight?

From worst to best:

Big game. Just don't. State law and my ethics dictate that if you take any animal you use all of it and that means getting from the hunting ground to a truck and on to freeze/packing house. Shoot something? End of trip.

Waterfowl. Seems to involve sitting in cold water in cold weather with a shotgun, blind, and decoys. It would be a lot easier and lighter to bring a frozen chicken.

Small game - ground squirrels, grouse, ptarmagin, marmot(?), and ESPECIALLY "low-bush moose". A .22 pack rifle as suggested above. But have a bail out plan if unsuccessful.

*"low-bush moose" are what you bring home when unsuccessful at getting 900-pound "high-bush moose". low-bush moose are 2-3 pounds and better known as "rabbits". Alas, they are now coming off a population peak, but should peak again in 7-9 years.

Fishing, especialy if well off the road system. Char, Grayling, and of course salmon during the summer / early fall runs. I'll go for grayling and ptarmagin on Adak (1100 miles off the road system) in October, I'll let you know how it goes. The reports are anyone with a pulse should limit any day they want to. Mostly I'll be on sherpa duty for friends going for caribou (they introduced the caribou for the 6,000-airmen base and then closed the base leaving 300 people on the island. With no predators, they get shot or starve.

Wild plants - My wife and I mostly hiked yesterday on a trail (!) on the popular Kenai Peninsula (!) and were mostly hiking (!) and gathered 2 quarts of high-bush cranberries and 2 quarts of low-bush cranberries in 2 hours of hiking. 3 pounds of fresh fruit in maybe an extra 25-30 minutes. For eating fresh above (elevation or lattitude) above treeline, I like crowberries and they are on the plant for much longer.

A rifle does not need to weigh 7 pounds. He mentioned small game, you can get a marlin papoose (.22) that weighs 3 lbs. The ammo is very light, much lighter than shotgun rounds.
You can get some hunting opportunities just walking down the trail at a reasonable pace. Look around and you will eventually see a few squirrels you can shoot at. Hunting is a good thing to do while hiking, but when you stop going to your intended destination to hunt, you are loosing the advantage. Carry a whistle. If you spook a rabbit you can blow the whistle and they will stop moving for a few seconds. At least, they do that around here.
Trapping could be an option. Snares would be very light.
You can also gather plants. There is no reason that all of this can't happen while you are hiking to your destination, provided that you are on an underused trail or going off trail.

it can certainly be fun (just like fishing), but the chances of lowering overall pack weight is very (very) slim

I used to carry a .44 mag handgun when working the backcountry for the FS, I carried .44 snake shot shells in my pocket and found that load to very effective for mountain grouse (blue, spruce, ruffed) you'd find along the trail. It was nice to get a little fresh meat on a 10 day hitch, but it certainly wasn't anything I counted on.

there are some very light .22 rifles out there (tigoat used to make a really neat one) that might be worth looking at

This option is light weight and almost certain to catch small game along established trails/campsites.

"...part of any AT thru-hiker's essential kit..."?

That's one of the funniest (and, possibly, most useful) suggestions for ~4 oz of gear I've seen for a thru yet!

Roasted chicken is about 50 calories per ounce.

Any wild game you get will be about that lean, or less. Add skin, bones, and guts, and you're down to 25 calories per ounce of harvested meat.

Not only do you expend a lot of energy and time harvesting, you have to eat a Lot to meet your needs.

There is an earlier post by someone fishing the JMT to "supplement" his rations. He lost a considerable amount of weight in a short amount of time.

If you are camping to hunt, that's one thing. If you are hiking to hike, that's another.

Edited by greg23 on 08/31/2012 08:20:48 MDT.

There was an AT nobo named Mousetrap this year.. for that reason.

To celebrate the first day of Spring I thought of posting something useful for a change :

http://www.free-gourmet-recipes.com/rats-recipes.html
Enjoy !!!
Franco
Sorry I forgot about the taste.
Nothing like chicken, for a change, but a bit like young wombat (12 months or so)

Edited by Franco on 09/01/2012 00:37:24 MDT.

At least for rats, you don't need a hunting license, something that can be extremely expensive if you're not a resident of the state in which you're hunting! That's especially true in states where non-resident hunters are required to have a licensed guide with them!

Why did Scott die but Amundsen succeed at the South Pole?

Many reasons, but a significant one was that ponies need hay (Scott). Whereas dogs can eat dog (Amundsen).

Self-propelled food. There are a large number of Chinese recipes.

And then there's the Donner Party method.

Couple more thoughts...

Spot-and-stalk hunting means you "move differently" than when you're just hiking along. You move a lot slower, you stop and listen a lot more.

You'd want to take a very lightweight .22 with "short" hollowpoint rounds. Take only the ammo you need (eg, you don't need a whole brick of 50.) Depending on how long you're out, you may want a small cleaning kit, at least for the barrel. You'll want something that "breaks down" so its easier to carry - something like the Ruger 10/22 or the Marlin Papoose. Another option is a small .22 pistol or airgun (.177 or .22) that you can pump up. Smaller, lighter, lighter ammo, quieter. You'll have to get closer, so make your call wisely. Skip scopes; too much maintenance and you shoudn't be taking long shots anyways, especially with the .22-shorts. Iron sights work fine and they won't get knocked around at all.

Using a whistle or predator call will cause many animals to "freeze."

Be sure you have license, season regs and you know your zone boundaries.

Some places allow you to shoot fish, but watch your angle because, like a rock, you can "skip" a bullet. Better to just take a few feet of line, a couple small hooks and just use grasshoppers and worms. (Did this with the girls recently, they had a more fun with the improv gear than with their real poles. Bonus points for the fun of an hour out catching grasshoppers, too.)

Take notes and a small laminated card of edible bugs. You can spit-roast or flat-rock-roast them next to the fire.

You can eat snakes. They're pretty tasty and have quite a bit of meat. Make sure you know how to field-dress them, especially the poisonous ones where you want to cut the head off and bury it (the head) because it'll stay 'active' and move for hours after it's dead.

Practice beforehand. If you cannot get out there with real arms, go out and get close enough you think you could hit it with a thrown rock. Don't actually do it, but get close enough you can. Squirrels are easier than rabbits. Much easier. You have to hunch over and go really really slow, patiently, to get close enough to a rabbit. :)

As mentioned previously, don't shoot anything big. You want small things you can skin with a swiss-army knife and stick on a spit (or pan-fry if you're carrying a pan. Take a little oil, too, because wild-game is much less fatty than farm-raised. Not all game has enough natural fat.)

Take a pair of thin gloves, like a doctor uses. Watch for latex allergies. They'll keep your hands clean and help with fleas/mites/ticks/pathogens in the animal. Skinning and cooking will be required. Make sure your gloves are textured, and you knife is sharp ... preferably with a finger-guard-tang. Fluids can make knife handles slippery. Not required but they're stupid-lightweight so why not. Besides, multi-use for carrying water, cutting them up for making pressure dressings, and putting on your head to look like a chicken.

On your next hike, split your food. For every "animal you bag" by getting close enough, you're allowed to take one thing out of the "goodie bag." Challenge your friends, too, because then you get bragging rights (and memories) as well. Learn from watching them. Watch the animals and how they act/react.

-mox

Mike: Good points. Expanding on:

>"Squirrels are easier than rabbits. Much easier."

Up here, I've heard ptarmagin referred to as "stupid chicken" and it's true. Practice your aim with a rock and you could really feed yourself. A "wrist rocket" slingshot and you'd be golden. Or read Clan of the Cave Bear about how expert Ayla got with a traditional sling. A friend saw a local in Asia whack an eagle from over a hundred yards, but that takes thousands of hours of practice.

Multi-purposing a bit, I've played with a aluminum tent pole as a blowgun for a small dart (wooden dowel from Home Depot with the tiniest bit of fletching on the back end). My strong sense was that, per hour of practice, it could be more effective that rock throwing.

Only after 9-11 did Alaska remove the REQUIREMENT that small planes fly with a firearm aboard. Fishing gear always made more sense to me, especially up here. Or snares for the yield per weight.

As an example of this check out the show "Out of the Wild: Alaska" on Amazon.com. The party in that show had to hunt/gather food and had a pretty rough time of it (although a real pro could probably have done much better). They had their best luck hunting small game with a .22/.410 shotgun combo. Hunting small game wasn't as much of an "All or nothing" affair as bigger game.

Those sub 1 to 2lb rifles you mention are not very accurate and require setup, takendown, must be held when walking etc...

If you want to hunt, take a good .22LR pistol with you that you can wear on your side, which allows for the opportunistic shot should it present itself. The pistol weighs 2lbs and is much more portable, and just as accurate (or more so) as any of the takedown survival style .22 rifles.

I prefer a Ruger MKII Government Target (no longer in production). You'll want a longer barrel for hunting purposes. That said, unless you enjoy hunting just take food. Easier, and cheaper (unless you already have the license.)

I saw an interesting presentation by some guys who foraged over a 5 or 6 day hike, and how it went. First they spent some time with a guy who is expert on edible plants and berries, and learned how to use some berries in cooking. Then the undertook their hike in late August, when a lot of berries would be ripe. They too no food except what they could forage on the way.

They also carried flour, like 5 pounds each, and mixed up batter to cook a "pan bread" and mixed in currents, gooseberries, and whatever berries they could find. In other words, they lived on pan bread and snacked on berries all day.

When their route got to a river they fished a lot, and ate fish big time. They really didn't have that far to go, and some of them finished the trip, but they were hungry as hell. They concluded you could forage, or you could hike, but its hard to forage and hike.

Now if they were really emulating the Indians, they would gather a lot of berries, dry them and make pemmican and have dried berries and dried jerky, and they could do pretty well.

I recently got back from an elk hunting trip with my dad in the Mt. Zirkel wilderness area. I wasn't doing any elk hunting, but did bring a sling shot and fishing pole that both broke down to pack. Mostly I would just day hike around to small lakes next to our main camp and do some fishing. I went on two separate overnight hikes along the Continental Divide Trail and made a loop back to our camp. I ended up not using the sling shot at all, but could have on several occasions. Basically, I wouldn't rely on hunting or fishing as a primary food source to save weight. I would only do it for the "adventure" of living off the land.

Fishing was great and it's really nice having fresh trout to eat for lunch and dinner. A few thoughts: The case to protect my pole was bulky and all my fishing gear weighed over a pound. I knew that there would be fish where I was fishing. I wouldn't rely on fishing unless you had fished where you are going before and even then always keep enough food to get you through just in case.

Interesting point. The Indians and frontiersmen did some of their hunting/travelling with no game laws and very plentiful game. But its also worth remembering that they preserved and carried food as well.

I am a hunter(fishermen too) not just a hiker but as far as hunting while hiking its not something I really do. My rule is though if a warm fuzzy critter(say a squirrel, inside proper hunting seasons only of course but in my state squirrel season is in all but 2 months now) runs in front of me and I can whack it with my trekking pole its going to be dinner. I don't actively hunt anything though and wouldn't want to rely on my method for keeping me fed.

I do carry a collaspeable fishing pole(weights 4.8oz w/spare line and hooks) and fish a lot but you really can't really on that either. I fool heartedly tried that once and didn't catch a thing and therefore was hungry.

I'd try for a take-down "survival" rifle in .22 magnum. That cartridge has about 75% more power (and effective distance) than a .22 long rifle cartridge. I know, I have both.

Plus, the newer .22 magnum cartridges are available in copper JACKETED bullets which have better terminal ballistics (killing power). And that's what you want, a quick, clean, one shot kill. .22 long rifle bullets are merely copper dipped or guilded.

You don't need copper jackets for this. Wasted cost/weight ... you're not going to be doing super-long range shots and you're not going to end up melting lead from .22s. The copper jackets also inhibit hollow-point expansion.

"Shorts" are better than longs because they're smaller, lighter and FAR (far) quieter.

Blowguns are illegal many places (such as here in California) and an aluminum pole converted to a blowgun carries the added "hidden weapon" attachment if they feel like it.

Indians did carry much of their food with them, even though they were experts at living off the land. We have the added 'hardship' of limited hunting seasons, dispersed game, more skittish game in many areas (due to human encroachment), noise levels while hunting (non-hunters can get pretty irritable if they hear a 30-30 go off and make your life quite annoying), etc.

In addition, we don't (usually) live in the area we hunt/trek, so we lack the indigenous knowledge of the land, animal migrations patterns, etc, and we don't have 'the elders' to help school us as we wander around.

-mox

Mike, unless you are an expert on terminal ballistics and can show me the figures I seriously doubt your contentions. You MAY want to run them by the guys on the forums at RIMFIRE CENTRAL.com and listen to their expert opinions - or not.

I can say from experience that the difference in killing power between a hollow point .22 long rifle and a hollow point jacketed .22 Winchester magnum cartridge is fairly large. BUT the weight difference is small. My statement is backed by over 50 years of hunting small game.

Using .22 shorts for survival is laughable and not sportsmanlike considering their low terminal ballistics.

When a rabbit appears at 75 yards you DO want the ballistics of a .22 magnum for a good chance at killing it.

'Nuf sed.

I once carried a blowgun with me on a five day hike. It had a stopper for the end of the barrel so it could double as a hiking stick - granted it's five feet long.

The blowgun I carried:
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=708943&destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct.jsp%3FproductId%3D708944&WTz_l=YMAL%3BIK-229653

I personally don't try and hike with a blowgun anymore, but maybe someone else might want to. There are immense MYOG opportunities for both darts and blowguns, but here are a few things to consider if you're interested:

Several Cons:
- It probably isn't legal in most places (this is why I've only carried it once)
- It scares people when they see it on the trail
- You are limited to an effective range of about twenty yards
- It's like miniature bowhunting - shot placement is everything (you must practice)

Several Pros:
- It's light
- Squirrels are tasty
- It's multipurpose
- It's a unique challenge, which can be rewarding


I'm not an expert by any means. These guys are: http://blowgun.lefora.com/


It seems to me that if the original goal is to save weight, then carrying a three-pound rifle doesn't make any sense.

I've found that snares are likely the best lightweight way to hunt - if at all.


Cheers.



*edited for a typo

Edited by remjroth on 12/05/2012 15:40:04 MST.

You can hunt just fine with a pellet rifle, and you can hunt just fine with a .22 short or LR.

If you cannot get closer than 75 yards to a rabbit, and you need to take that shot, fine, use the higher powered round with a scope and whatever.

You're talking 75 yards ... I'm talking 20-30 yards. At 20-30 yards a .22 jacketed magnum will work, sure. But then so will a .22 short ... or a pellet rifle...or a slingshot. Been there, done that.

Sorry, I bowhunt so I think like a bowhunter and that means close range. Maybe you're right and a survival situation would require that longer range and punch (and the decreased hit-chance inherent in long-range shooting) but that's not where I happen to be coming from.

A non-jacketed head will expand and fragment better at 20 yards than a jacketed round will. Jacketed rounds tend to "keep" too much of their KE and go through targets which is sub-optimal as you want that KE transmitted into the target.

/shrug

Hunt your own hunt.

-mox

Does anyone have experience hunting with a pistol? I am thinking about getting a .22 revolver as a woods gun. I have never hunted with a pistol. It would sure be light.

I haven't hunted with a pistol but pistols in general are tricky to shoot accurately. Course you can do some things hunting you would not do in a "combat" type situation. I've seen some pistol hunters using crossed sticks as a rest to steady their shot.

I've hunted deer with a .44 magnum before. There were special circumstances which made a pistol the best option to hunt with at that time (I wouldn't normally chose one.) To prepare, I practiced shooting at fifty yards - granted the .44 had a long-relief scope (a scope meant for pistols so that when one holds the pistol away from his body he can see through it.)

Are pistols trickier? Yes, but good shooting techniques for rifles carry over into the world of pistols (i.e. breathing, trigger squeeze, timing...)

I imagine shooting a .22 pistol at a squirrel (without a scope - which really only magnifies the target anyways and adds weight) would be manageable within a reasonable distance. It depends on one's skill and practice with shooting. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable shooting at a squirrel with a .22 pistol from farther than thirty yards. I would want to shoot within twenty yards if possible. Then again, I'm not the greatest shot you'll ever come across.

@Justin
Most states have laws pertaining to the hunting of small game, and the law varies from state to state. So you need to read and understand your state's laws and license requirements. Looking through the California Fish and Game website, it appears there are specific seasons for both cottontail and branch chicken. It looks like you will need a hunting license, which in turn requires completion of a hunter safety course.

Anybody can take a hunter safety course and everybody probably should take one. There are no prerequisites nor is any intent to even hunt necessary. It's mostly about developing good gun safety habits.

So- if you are even remotely interested in hunting, take a hunter education course.

Here's the link to class schedule from the CFG site:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/huntered/classes.aspx

Go forth, kill stuff, eat it, have fun.

David

Edited by DavidAdair on 12/05/2012 21:01:07 MST.

David, I took a hunter safety course a long time ago. But thank you for the links/info.

No slight intended. Personally, I've been kind of jonesing for a Ruger 10/45 lite semi-auto for some reason. At 22 oz it's not ultra light but not much out there is.

oops, the model is 22/45 not 10/45.

Edited by DavidAdair on 12/06/2012 07:53:12 MST.

When it all boils down to that 10 seconds of "aim and pull the trigger" hunting with a pistol is no different than a shooting range.

The difference is in the time leading up to that 10 seconds, finding, stalking, getting into position.

If you can hit a target at a range at 20 yards, you can do it in the field (buck fever et al notwithstanding. :)

California has very strict carry laws, so you'll have to be wary of that. In National Forests you can open-carry, but on County/State property the rules change. And you cannot hunt on almost any County/State property, even in-season, except for BLM land.

National Forests are different, as mentioned, and private property you're good to go (within CA game laws and seasons.)

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457

-mox