NCD misses the boat in regards to flossing being a sporting activity. Those who choose to do it may consider it sporting, but they are missing the same boat. The only relevance that ethics have in regards to recreational angling is that the people with clout and influence end up determining what the fishing regulations are, so the regulations are a reflection of that group's sporting ethic.

A simple examination of the history of sport fishing and hunting traditions instantly explains why flossing is not sport fishing. Sport fishing and hunting are defined in large part by the body of sporting tradition. In order to be a sport fisherman or sport hunter, you are necessarily obligated to respect the traditions. The highest aspect of these traditions are the rules of "fair chase." The forefathers of hunting and fishing for sport concluded that fair chase prohibits baiting deer and elk, prohibits shooting a "sitting" duck or other waterfowl, and limits sport fishing to angling with a hook and line such that the fish willingly strikes or takes the bait, lure, or fly into its mouth. Therefore, flossing, lining, snagging, and any other form of taking fish that don't willingly strike the lure is not sport fishing.

One may wish to argue that concepts evolve, and I won't argue with that. I think it's self evident that snaggers of some sorts are attempting to "evolve" or modernize the traditions of sport fishing to include their favored practice. And then hard cores here like Todd and others, are fundamentalists, insisting on adherence to the ethic as defined in the sporting tradition of fair chase. Only time will tell who wins and who loses this contest of wills.

As for Aunty's insistence of the perverse humor in arguing over which form of torture is more ethical is a related, yet different argument. The issue she introduces is not about sporting tradition and fair chase. The issue she brings is actually a bit higher on the social ethics scale. That issue is usually called "killing for sport." (Which does include CNR if that's not obvious.) That segment of society, and maybe all of civilization, that opposes killing for sport lumps all sport fishermen, snaggers, and hunters into the same group of low lifes. Maybe they're right, but I think they're wrong. However, my explanation of the positive value of the blood sports - hunting and fishing - is likely perceived by them as merely a self-serving rationalization for an activity that I like to do. We've gotten into that before, but this thread is not the best place to drag that all out again.

Sg