Aha. So it's the activities and not necessarily the people we should be classifying?

It's both, at the same time.

Fishing...sportfisherman.

Gillnetting...commercial fisherman.

Snagging...douchebag.

See? Simple

The next step is this: If you are a commercial fisherman you don't go on sportfishing BBs and brag about all the fish you gillnetted...if you are a snagger you shouldn't, either...I'm sure they have douchebag boards for those guys that aren't about sportfishing

Fish on...

Todd

I'm beginning to understand all of this lingo.

What is a game fisherman then?

Subsistence snagging is not sport fishing. There are no non native subsistence fisheries in the lower 48 unless i am missing something. Using the unfortunate AK sockeye example to justify that bull$hit down here doesnt pass muster. The rest who say it is OK if you keep the first two, or that it is Ok for non biters, check your ethics at the door and understand that you are no better than the guy on the Skok with the ladder.

X Many Zillions.

Being a snagger where it's not legal is kinda sad...pretending it's fishing is downright pathetic.

Fish on...

Todd

Flossing sockeye in AK is not legal as the rules are written.

When done for subsistence purposes is that an ethical pursuit or douchbaggery?

If it's not legal then you have answered your own question to my satisfaction.

Fish on...

Todd

I was always under the impression that the ladder guy on the skok was todd.

What is legal, the letter of the law, intent of the law, the way that enforcement decides to uphold the law?

Riddle me this then, what is the ethical difference between flossing sockeye for subsistence purposes and say, hunting?

Setting aside the legal definition for a moment.

The intent of the law would have to be the highest ground.
Letter of the law is subject to interpretation/spinning to suit one's needs.
Enforcement might be caught in the middle.

Agreed in each case.

That's a tough one.
There are cow only and spike only tags....those are meat hunters and would be similar to subsistence take of sockeye, IMO.

There are also 3 point or better tags...this would be more of a trophy hunt and different than blatant meat hunting.
The hunter may pass on some animals hoping for something bigger.

There are parallels in each case in the fishing world. Slot limits, letting the little ones go, trophy fisherman vs. meat fisherman etc.

Ever met a big or small game animal "willing" to take what you are offering? I have not.

The pursuits are very different in that regard.
Also in fishing the angler can often choose to harvest the beast or not.

Indeed. So again for aspiring sportsman out there, what is the ethical difference between harvesting unwilling fish and unwilling wildlife, assuming for a moment both are done within the confines of the law and the animals are treated as humanely as possible given the intent.

I'd feel like sh1t if I caught and kept fish that I know didn't bite. But how ever you want to trick your mind that flossing is okay then by all means do it, whatever makes you sleep at night.

Meaning that if people (not you coley) are adding flossing under the veil of sportfishing.

and if you are knowingly flossing it is the same to me as bowfishing for carp, not necessarily wrong, but never should be considered sport fishing as defined under the law.

Would you consider yourself a hunter if you bust ass scouting on public land, locate a nice bull, get out there on opening day and spend two days tracking him and getting him close, and sticking him with a perfect shot with an arrow?

How about the same animal on a "guided" hunt on fenced land, where the "guide" knows the animal by name and drives you right to him on a 4 wheeler and you shoot it?

I'd barely consider the second scenario to be better than using a backhoe to pick up roadkill and putting it in the back of your truck...and it's still better than being a snagger. At least it's legal and you're not stealing the resource from real hunters.

Fish on...

Todd