I don't agree that I was incorrect. You are citing the cooked calorie content, I was quoting the raw value. When someone claims to have caught a one pound trout, that is not its cooked weight. After cooking a cleaned fish, the fish will loose about 15-20% of its raw weight from water loss and the calories are concentrated, hence your higher figure.

I stand by the info I quoted; raw trout provides between 35 and 40 calories per oz. In fact, we are really quibbling over just a few calories per ounce. Clearly, trout or any other fish, including salmon, is not calorie dense.

And my main point was that for someone mainly interested in hiking rather than fishing, relying on catching fish would be a distraction, at best. I am not saying don't catch and eat fish: I'm saying don't rely on catching fish for a significant part of your hiking diet unless you don't mind being hungry on occasion or unless you are prepared to spend a significant amount of your time fishing. Stopping by a rushing mountain stream after a full days hiking and catching enough fish for dinner in a few minutes can happen but in general it is just a pleasant fantasy. In my experience, fish are just not that cooperative.

Quote:
If you're serious about it and you are a decent angler with confidence......i say you could feel pretty safe leaving 20-35% of your rations at home. Enjoy the fishing and bon appetite.


You are clearly a far better, and much more serious, fisherman than am I and so I will have to accept the reliability with which you can catch fish, especially large ones. Personally, every time I have tried to rely on catching fish for food in the years I have been hiking and climbing, I have never caught enough fish to keep me well fed. HYOH.


Edited by Pika (04/18/10 10:24 AM)
_________________________
May I walk in beauty.