[Brian]

Commercial guys have invested money in licences, nets & other equipment and have a legal right to fish where the law says they can. They have no right to tell anyone else (anglers, snowmobilers, etc.) legally enjoying the lake, harvesting the resource, etc.) that they can't be there. Also, commercial fisherman provide fish for persons who like to eat fish but either can't or don't want to fish themselves. That said, I must add that I do not support commercial fishing in lakes where there is significant sports fishing pressure. With the resources & means of travel in modern day Alberta that pretty much includes every lake that has a road or cutline to it. Recreational angling benefits a huge number of people including all of the service providers (gas stations, fast food outlets, tackle/bait shops, etc, etc,) along the way. It's also hugely important (in my opinion) to attract young people & catch/hold their interest. They are the future to the protection of our resources, and I'd a whole lot rather have my son or daughter out fishing rather than some of the other passtimes they could get into. I also like the idea that there are some "untouched" lakes (ion my dreams) out there where the fishing has to be fantastic!......even though I may never get to fish them. Just thinking they exist has a value to me.
I realize that some fish populations may be better managed by some discriminate use of gill nets (commercial fishing if you prefer), but those are special cases and need to be identified very carefully before proceding. McGreggor Lake (southeast of Calgary & Lake Newell near Brooks) have been commercially fished for many years....primarly for whitefish (McGeggor to the tune of over 100,000+ lbs. of whitefish per year), although other species are taken, and the whitefish fishery at least seems to still be healthy. The walleye seem to be doing well also. There are ways of reducing the non-target species catch by restricting locations of net placement. Finally.......yes, government is buying back commercial licences in some areas (where & when they can) to reduce the commercial pressure on some lakes and to prevent backlash from commercial fishermen crying "foul" because their livelihood (so to speak) is being threatened by reduced quotas or closures. In most cases I'm sure the price the government pays for those licences is far more than the fishermen actually paid, but there could be exceptions to that, and I'm not sure what is fair. Certainly the commercial guys grouch a lot that they're being short changed. In all honesty, we would have to put ourselves in their place to realize that we wouldn't be real happy about it either. However, the individual can't be the priority as compared to the benefit to the greater population, and most of all.............the resource. My thoughts only, but I suspect others may share them.