How useful is fishing in a survival situation?

Fishing is one of those skills that looks “guaranteed” on paper and becomes situational in practice. Historically, armies and small units did exploit fishing, but usually when they had time, security, and access to good water.

Examples: Roman and later early-modern campaigns relied more on requisition, grain, and livestock than on daily “hunting and fishing.” In WWII, ad hoc fishing shows up in diaries and POW accounts, but it’s rarely portrayed as a high-yield solution; it’s more a morale and supplementation tool. In the Cold War era, survival manuals (USAF SERE literature, various national equivalents) treated fishing as a useful method, but not the primary one—because the decisive factor is time-to-calories.

Doctrinally, the question is always: can you convert effort into predictable calories without compromising security? If you’re in a 24–72 hour window, most military approaches prioritize movement, shelter, water, and signaling/evade over spending hours waiting on a bite. In longer-term scenarios (static position, low threat, good aquatic ecosystem), fishing becomes much more attractive.

So yes, it can be useful—but historically it’s “supplement and sustainment when conditions allow,” not a universal solution.

From a kit perspective, fishing is one of the best weight-to-option ratios you can carry, but only if you keep it minimal and realistic.

My take:

- Micro kit (line + a few hooks + small weights + 1–2 lures) is worth it. It weighs almost nothing and fits in any pouch.

- A compact rod is convenience, not necessity. Handline fishing works; a rod just increases control and reduces frustration.

- Add-ons that actually matter: small forceps/pliers, a tiny spool of strong line, and something for cutting line. Don’t overpack.

The bigger question is: are you near fishable water often enough to justify the time? If your route is “woods + river + ponds,” then yes, carrying a tiny kit makes sense. But don’t count on it as your primary food plan. Think of it like water purification tablets: small item, high potential, but not a guarantee.

Also, your local conditions matter a lot—fast rivers, muddy ponds, heavy fishing pressure, or cold seasons can turn “easy fishing” into “burn calories for nothing.”

In training we learned fishing as one of several options, but in the field the reality was: if you’re moving, you don’t have time. If you’re tired and already running a calorie deficit, waiting around for fish can be a bad trade.

Where it helped was when you had a semi-static situation and could set something and check it later (think: work on shelter, water, security, then check lines). The “set it and forget it” approach beats actively casting for hours.

For 24–72 hours, I’d rather see someone carry extra food and focus on staying warm/dry and hydrated than gamble on fish. For longer-term, fishing becomes a real contributor if you have reliable water access and you can do it without exposing yourself.

One practical note: keep your expectations sane. A lot of people assume fish = easy protein. In bad weather, cold water, or pressured waterways, it’s not. It’s a skill you practice ahead of time, not a switch you flip under stress.

Fishing is overrated in “survival TikTok” and underrated by people who never tried it. The truth is brutal: if you’re banking on fishing to feed you in the first 72 hours, you’re planning to fail.

You don’t fish because it’s magic—you fish because it’s a low-weight option that might pay off when conditions are right. But people love to romanticize it and ignore the opportunity cost: time, exposure, and calories burned.

If you’re near water and can set lines while doing other priorities, fine. If you’re hiking all day and then you’re going to spend your last daylight hours trying to catch dinner? That’s how you end up cold, wet, and still hungry.

So yeah: pack a tiny kit, learn the skill, but stop treating it like a primary plan. Primary plan is carried calories + water + shelter + staying uninjured.

Not to derail, but “how useful is fishing” also depends on what you can observe and how you manage time. In a modern ops mindset, reconnaissance beats guessing.

Even in a civilian survival context, if you can safely scout water features (from a distance, not doing anything sketchy), you’ll make better choices: where fish are staging, which inlets have activity, whether the bank access is viable without getting soaked.

Future-looking angle: we already see cheap sensors and small drones used for mapping and inspection. In theory, observation tools could reduce wasted effort—finding the right spot, timing, and access. That said, in an actual emergency you may not have batteries, legal airspace, or the ability to maintain electronics.

So the “low-tech” lesson stands: the more you can gather info (water clarity, insect activity, shallow structure) before committing time, the more useful fishing becomes.

I’m going to translate this into sustainment terms: fishing is a supply line that depends on terrain and security. If you don’t control the “route” (safe access to water) you can’t rely on it.

Mechanized units historically solve food with logistics, not improvisation. The survival equivalent is: carry what you need for the time horizon you expect, then use local resources only as augmentation.

For 24–72 hours, your “internal fuel tank” is what you brought. Fishing might be a bonus if you’re halted near water anyway. For longer durations, fishing can become a steady trickle of protein if you can set up a routine and not burn excessive calories.

So, useful? Yes, but it’s a supporting system, not your main engine.

On the maritime side, fishing has always been central—because the environment is literally a food source when you’re operating on/near water. But even there, professionals didn’t “wing it.” They used nets, lines, and local knowledge, and they did it when conditions allowed.

For a survival situation near a river/pond, your advantage is proximity, but your limitation is tools and time. Active hook-and-line fishing can be low yield. Passive methods (set lines) can be better if you can do it safely and responsibly.

Also: season matters a lot. In colder periods, fish behavior changes, access is harder, and you’ll spend more time exposed to wind and wet. That exposure can be more dangerous than hunger in the short term.

Bottom line: if your environment is water-rich, fishing can meaningfully supplement your diet—especially over weeks. For days, it’s a “maybe,” not a guarantee.

From the “time-on-target” mindset: fishing is only efficient if it doesn’t steal time from higher priorities.

If you’ve got limited daylight, bad weather moving in, and you still need shelter and a fire plan, fishing can become a distraction. In aviation terms, it’s like chasing a low-probability intercept while fuel is getting low.

But if you’re already set—shelter sorted, water sorted, you’re staying put—then spending some time fishing is reasonable, especially if you can do it without getting wet or making a ton of noise.

I’d treat it as a secondary task you do after the essentials are locked in.

If you’re building a realistic plan, think like a training pipeline: fundamentals first, specialties second.

Fundamentals for most people are fitness, basic land nav, water purification, shelter skills, and the discipline to keep moving and making good decisions when tired. Fishing is a specialty skill—useful, but only if you’ve practiced it enough that it doesn’t turn into a frustration sink.

A good approach is to do a couple “practice weekends” in safe conditions (legal spot, proper permissions) and track results: how long to set up, how often you catch anything, and how much time it takes away from other tasks.

If you can’t consistently get bites on normal days, you probably won’t do better on your worst day.

A lot of people imagine the special operations “live off the land” thing means you can just fish/hunt anytime. The reality is more boring: planning and logistics win, and fieldcraft is a backup.

In many selection/training narratives, the lesson is prioritization under stress. Fishing is a classic trap (no pun intended): it feels productive, but it can chew hours. The smart play is passive methods and only when your tactical situation allows it.

If you’re evading or trying to stay low profile, you don’t want to be silhouetted on a bank at dusk doing repetitive motions. If you’re in a permissive environment and static, fishing becomes more viable.

So yes, learn it, carry a micro kit, but don’t fall for the myth that it replaces food planning.

Fishing is useful, but it’s not “reliable food on demand.” Think of it as a probability game where you can improve your odds with skill, location, timing, and low energy output.

Practical framing:

- Short term (24–72h): prioritize shelter, staying dry, water, and a small calorie buffer you carried. Fishing is optional unless you’re already set and near easy water.

- Longer term: fishing can become a strong protein source if you can fish passively (set lines) and you’re not burning more calories than you gain.

A few safe, non-detailed tips:

- Scout first: look for shallow structure, shade lines, inlets/outlets, and signs of activity.

- Keep it simple: a few hooks, small weights, line, and patience.

- Avoid getting wet and cold. Hypothermia risk can outpace hunger risk fast.

And don’t forget legality and safety: in a real emergency the priorities change, but in normal life practice legally and responsibly so the skill is there when you need it.

Reliance on fishing also depends on the broader situation. In disasters, waterways can be crowded, contaminated, or restricted, and local pressure can wipe out “easy catches” quickly. If lots of people have the same idea, the resource gets stressed.

From a resilience standpoint, fishing is part of diversification. Don’t build a plan with a single point of failure (one river, one technique, one assumption). Build layers: stored food, the ability to relocate, and multiple ways to obtain calories.

Also, consider information: if you’re in a scenario with disrupted services, you may not know if upstream contamination occurred. That doesn’t mean “never fish,” but it means you should be cautious and avoid making confident assumptions about safety.

As a piece of a broader preparedness plan, fishing is useful. As a primary pillar, it’s fragile.

I look at it like a system design problem: inputs (time, calories, exposure, tools) vs outputs (edible calories, morale). Fishing can be positive ROI, but only when the process is efficient.

Efficiency boosters:

- Proximity: if water is on your route or next to your shelter site, the “travel cost” drops.

- Parallel tasks: if you can set something up and then work on shelter, firewood, signaling, etc., you’re not burning time exclusively on fishing.

- Simplicity and reliability: fewer moving parts means fewer failures when you’re tired.

For short duration, logistics wins: carry more calories. For longer duration, a repeatable routine near a consistent water source can justify the effort.

If you want to be rigorous, do a personal after-action review after practice trips: time spent, results, and what failed (knots, access, forgetting gear, choosing poor spots).

I’m newer to this stuff, but I tried “survival-style” fishing on a camping trip and it surprised me how hard it was compared to regular fishing. Without a full tackle box and without knowing the water, I basically wasted an evening.

So I’m kind of leaning toward: it’s a good backup skill, but only if you practice on your local river/pond ahead of time.

Question for the experienced folks: if you only carried one tiny fishing item (like line or a lure), what would it be? I’m trying to keep my kit small.

In scenario terms, fishing is high variance. In a sim, you’d model it as a resource node with uncertain yield and a time cost that competes with security and shelter tasks.

If your scenario is “moving to safety,” fishing is usually a losing play because it anchors you to terrain and consumes daylight. If your scenario is “hold in place near water,” fishing’s expected value rises—especially if you can fish intermittently while maintaining concealment.

I’d structure a plan like this:

- Base load: enough food for your likely duration.

- Capability add-on: micro fishing kit for opportunistic use.

- Decision rule: only fish when shelter/water/security are handled and conditions indicate decent odds.

That avoids magical thinking while still capturing the upside.

Interesting angle: fishing is one of those “human labor” tasks that future tech could make more efficient, but only if the tech is rugged and sustainable.

Small autonomous tools (camera-on-a-pole, simple sensors, even basic machine vision on a phone) could help identify promising spots and reduce wasted time. The issue is power, durability, and the reality that most emergencies degrade your ability to maintain devices.

In today’s terms, I’d treat fishing as a low-tech skill with a low-tech kit, and only optionally supported by electronics you already carry. Don’t make your survival plan dependent on batteries and fragile gear.

So: useful, yes—especially long term near water—but keep the approach simple and failure-tolerant.