I was wondering if that question would come up and I am glad it did. This is a much debated topic, as you are certainly aware, and yes there is a huge difference between rural/village subsistence and those that "want" fish rather than "need" it to survive.

Don't get me started on the Kenai tourists that fly in, load up a bunch of coolers and fly back to Texas to leave the fish to rot in a freezer for years or give it away as party favors.

I can tell you how I apply the subsistence concept in my life and what I mean by it. Salmon is an important part of what I consider a healthy diet and the most cost effective and responsible way for me to provide that is to catch it.

In years past when king and coho runs supported harvesting the amount of salmon we want and I would argue need for our annual diet, I didn't need to harvest sockeye. More recently, with declining king and coho runs, it hasn't been possible or responsible to harvest the fish we need for personal use and so I have looked to sockeye fishing to fill in the gap.

Would we starve if we didn't have wild fish and game to subsist on, certainly not, but I would much rather put my dollars and effort into sustainable wild protein than buy something from the store with an unknown history. I believe this is both healthy and responsible and the way the "system" is meant to work, responsible, local harvest. I don't take more than we need.

The only two reasonable options for personal use harvest of sockeye are flossing and dipnetting.

Don't get me wrong. I hate every second I spend trying to floss a sockeye. Nothing about it resembles fishing as I enjoy it. Not too mention the environment of combat and less usually less than enjoyable company. I'd like few things more than to not "have" to participate in this fishery.

Agreed on your points about intent.

The problem of snagging fish other than in the mouth while attempting to floss is easily solvable through technique and tackle.

See Doc's treatise on circle hooks.