I don't think asking who shapes ethics and laws is a stupid question at all. Both tend to change over time and so clearly someone is shaping this refinement process if that is indeed what is happening, though I agree that morally and ethically as a whole we seem to be sliding down a slippery slope regardless of quality of content of the law books. I would also submit that there have been plenty of unethical laws on the books throughout history as well.

One of the ways that ethics are shaped is through constructive conversations like I was hoping this one might continue to be.

I am still waiting for your preferred definition of fair chase KK. I know there are a few versions out there and even more interpretations thereof.

I am not trying to support the notion that any means are justified for a given end. I am however saying that intent may justify some means that are not ethical for all or other intents and it is with great caution I offer that. If you can't tell already, as someone who would like to think of himself as an ethical sportsman, I've struggled with this issue a lot over the years and still do.



A few questions still lingering in my mind:

1. Is flossing Alaskan sockeye for subsistence purposes ethical or unethical and more importantly, why.

2. If unethical, what is the ethical difference between harvesting unwilling fish and unwilling wildlife if fair chase standards, sustainable harvest, and humane methods are applied, again with subsistence being the intent.

3. Which is the more ethical means to harvest sockeye for personal use, flossing or dipnetting, why.

Before we get into the legal vs. illegal vacuum again, both the intent and enforcement of the way the snagging law is written in AK do not target flossing sockeye as an illegal activity, therefore by default flossing sockeye is done withing the confines of the law as applied.