I spent a lot of years working for trappers - fur trappers and ADC trappers - and trapping associations in MI, in varying leadership roles. I am wondering how many people on here believe that fur trapping is recreational like a lot of State fish and game departments say it is? If so, why? What do you think makes it recreational?

Another question; Do you believe nonresident trappers should be able to trap in your State with the same identical seasons, for all of the species you can legally harvest, using the same regulations you do, and for the same license fee that you pay?

I know this isn't our typical type of discussion, so humor me. I've been on Paul's site for many years off and on under various names. I have 58 years of trapping experience.

I don't much care if it's called recreational or not.
And I have no problem with nonresidents playing by the same rules as residents. I wish it were that way nationwide.

It's a word game. There's reasons why things a labeled certain ways. When the word commercial comes into use all kinds of fun regulations come into play.

Definitely commercial here.
Non residents should not be able to acquire a registered trapline in my opinion but they should be allowed to work for an 01 trapper.as an 02

I post of this just my 2 cents.

I do it for the love of it. Will always be a heritage trapping furs to me,Born 1980 and I have been doing it ever since. I have so many pictures and memories of me and dad back then, and we still do a week long trip every year. Not only fur but also people in those days eat a lot of what I caught as well. ( Beaver, coon ). And I still
Have a lot of friends that will call every year looking for meat.

Now the out of State fees and reg. Yes I wish we could trap other sates the same as the locals and pay same price.
I have never veiled in having to pay extra for out of state license. On hunting or trapping. Any help
On the animal population helps and shouldn’t have to pay more. We are all ready paying to get there, paying to stay and eat. There still making money on us.

I would like to see the seasons, regulations, and cost the same in all states for resident/non-resident.
I am busy enough with trapping that I have sets out most months of the year and I would count only about 3 weeks as recreational. Most of my activity is focused on helping landowners with critter issues.

… I get paid a little to kill things around here

…. And a make a few bucks off of wildcat hides

…. I’d say that’s commercial

.. and as far as the nonresident stuff goes…. They come down here in droves to do the same thing

… then make social media videos about it

I trap because I enjoy doing it. Whether the fur prices are up or down I trap. I don't mind if nonresidents can trap as long as they respect any of the trappers in the same area.

As long as it's reciprocal I'm okay with it.

Registered traplines I would consider commercial.

Open area trapping I would consider recreational.

Non resident trappers should not be allowed.

Like Georgia's 5k bond requirement for nonresidents.

It is both

"Recreational" far outnumber the "commercial" trappers in the lower 48 though

I consider commercial to mean a person makes a good part of their living expenses off of trapping. ADC work mostly but there are some individuals that make a decent part of their yearly income off of trapping and selling fur.

I consider it a challenge with exercise included!

i believe that others should be able to come to mich, and trap everything that we can trap, i have gone else where and trap, as far as price i see no problem with paying more for license , i dislike trapping called a sport, or recreational,

What would you guys think if I told you the SCOTUS has already legally defined what constitutes an activity being done for recreation versus an activity being done commercially? Even the Internal Revenue Service has defined what constitutes an activity being engaged in as a not-for-profit hobby versus a for-profit avocation or business venture.

The IRS short version is a recreational activity is one that DOES NOT generate an income stream. In example, Little League baseball players play the game for recreation and sport. They do not play it with the intention of being paid even a dollar.

Fur harvesting - the hunting and trapping of furbearers and fur-bearing predators - is a commercial activity because it generates an income stream due to you harvesting the animals with the intention of shipping and selling the animals and all the products thereof in interstate commerce. As such, according to the IRS commercial fur harvesting can be engaged in as a not-for-profit hobby or as a for-profit avocation or business venture. If you are engaged in commercial fur harvesting as a not-for-profit hobby you are not keeping records of your time invested each year toward commercial fur harvesting, your total costs each year, or your income you receive. You have no idea if you are profitable or not. But if you are operating as a for-profit avocation or as a business venture you are keeping very detailed records of all your fur harvesting activities all year long on a daily basis, you know and record all of your overhead costs - fixed and variable - and all sources for, and amounts of, all income received. And you are constantly looking for ways to lower your overhead costs and be more efficient, which will make you more profitable. The more profitable you are the more enjoyment you will get from it as it is not costing your family money - you are making money and a a part of your livelihood from the activity you love to do.

If your State fish and game division is telling you fur harvesting is commercial, they are telling you a falsehood. A complete fabrication. There is a reason they are doing it as well. And it is self serving for them.

I'll post the SCOTUS rulings in a day or two. But remember this, the words "avocation, business venture, profitable, and livelihood" are very important to this discussion.

JP,
Scared of a little competition?

Come on down to Georgia fellers....."The water's fine!"

If a trapper never sells ANY fur or receives ANY money for ADC work, that is recreational. Otherwise, obviously it is commercial.

I've been trapping for nearly 60 years in Alaska. If a NR from a small flat state with no butt-deep snow wants to come here and try his hand, why shouldn't he operate under the same rules? I'm not worried about a little competition.

Pete

I accidentally made a wording mistake and left off an important point towards the end of my last posting. Let me correct it here:

If your State fish and game division is telling you fur harvesting is recreational, they are telling you a falsehood. A complete fabrication. There is a reason they are doing it as well. And it is self serving for them. By stating fur harvesting is recreational, and managing fur harvesting as being recreational, they could be deliberately violating federal and Constitutional laws and the fundamental rights of nonresident commercial fur harvesters unless they have a substantial reason for treating nonresident fur harvesters disparately (different) from the citizens of their own State that are engaged in commercial fur harvesting. It was long ago ruled by the SCOTUS that when natural resources are harvested and destined for interstate commerce, the statutes and regulations governing the harvesting and those engaged in the commercial activity must conform to federal and Constitutional laws.

I apologize for the mistakes earlier this morning. I was on a short time schedule. I should not have rushed and posted without proof reading it first.

It was also ruled long ago that each state has the ability to manage their own natural resources independently. Was a thrrad not too long ago on this topic if I remember correctly. I agree with independent management for what its worth.....

Glad you corrected that Gabby Sr. If you receive money for trapping either through fur sales or ADC charges you are a commercial trapper. Any money you receive whether you keep records for deductions or not is taxable so commercial. A WA Trappers License is a commercial license, and I think it plays better with the public that way. I talked to a lot of non-trappers at our fair booth about this and it seems it is more defensible if you can say it is part of your income. That doesn't mean you can't say you enjoy it but people understand a part-time job. Now, something like bear trapping in Maine probably recreational.
As far as non-resident trapping it should be open to all. Even in Canada with registered traplines I don't see why one would object if a person living in another province bought a trapline. If one lives near a border trapping two States or Provinces might be very sensible. We have enough roadblocks without fighting amongst ourselves over an underutilized resource.

Midlander, you are correct. In Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U.S. 545, 552 (1924), the SCOTUS ruled that, " protection of the wildlife of the State is peculiarly within the police power, and the State has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection." That only applies if a natural resource is being pursued as a recreational activity such as Elk or deer hunting.

But, based on SCOTUS rulings, when a natural resource, "with authority from the State," is being pursued with the intent of the harvested resource and all the products thereof being shipped and sold in interstate commerce, "with authority from the State" to do so, " the question is simply whether the State has exercised its police power in conformity with the feral laws and Constitution." [ See, Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1, at Pp. 13 (1928); and Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 285 (1977) ] To further reinforce this discussion, in Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371, 386 (1978), ruled, " In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States' interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to "own," including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas, 221 U.S. 229 (1911). Nor does a State's control over its resources preclude the proper exercise of federal power. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977); Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976); Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920). And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason it interferes with a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). See, Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).

As you can see, in its Baldwin, supra, rulings, the SCOTUS drew a clear line of demarcartion ( a clear difference ) between the fundamentally protected nature of a nonresident's pursuit of a livelihood, partially or completely, and the minimally protected nature of a nonresident's recreational pursuit. [ see, Baldwin, 436 U.S. 371, 387-388, 98 S.Ct. 1852 ]. It goes much further!

I'll get into this more when I post about the Baldwin rulings completely.

Hope this gives everybody a better understanding of why fur harvesting is commercial instead of recreational. The SCOTUS will spell it out in a day or two.

Not in Minnesota.

Rat Masterson, I'm well aware of what transpired in MN in 2014. I have a copy of the Court trial Memorandum. So what is your point?

Rat Masterson, as you have noticed I am not giving my opinions in what I am writing. I am quoting from SCOTUS rulings, and I will be quoting from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, as well. I will prove irrefutably, with SCOTUS and US Appeals Court rulings, where the Justice that presided over the MN trial was incorrect. I do not claim to be an attorney. I have studied law and I have a solid comprehension of what the SCOTUS rulings mean - word by word as each word has significant meaning as I will demonstrate. My goal here is to educate as many commercial fur harvesters as I can. Commercial fur harvesting has been good to me for 58 years. I'm just trying to give something back.

Here is a good example of what was missing from the Plaintiffs' evidence according to the Memorandum from the Court in MN. I do not know if it was submitted as evidence or if the Justice refused to accept it. Here it is:

In "The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: Technical Review 12-04, December 2012," by The Wildlife Society and The Boone and Crocket Club, on page 13, in Section 1, "Wildlife Resources Are a Public Trust," it states in part, " From our history, we know that some forms of commercial use of wildlife are unsustainable, especially in the absence of strong legal and regulatory controls on harvest and marketing. HOWEVER, in most jurisdictions some commercialization of wildlife is permissible under highly regulated legal regimes. For example, trapping is an important wildlife conservation tool and legitimate use of renewable wildlife resources, but only under a system of strict controls to limit harvest and to provide for legal commerce."

In Section 2, " Markets for Game are Eliminated," on page 14 and 15, it states in part, " It has since been held in principle that markets for game and nongame wildlife are unacceptable because they privatize a common resource and lead to declines. EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR FURBEARERS because there is an active market in Canada and the U.S. for furbearer pelts and in some instances meat [ e.g., muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and Raccoon (Procyon motor) ] . The underlying premise for fur markets is that they are highly regulated and serve a conservation purpose because harvests are within normal population fluctuation levels consistent with sustainable-use principles, help manage conflicts between furbearers and humans, and foster support for habitat conservation. [ Boffess et al. 1990, Geist et. al. 2001, Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1996.]"

In " Potential Costs of Losing Hunting and Trapping as Wildlife Management Methods, Updated: May 25th, 2005, produced by the Animal Use Issues Committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies," on page 1, it states in part, " The social and economic damages which might be incurred from the loss of hunting and trapping, by aboriginal peoples or other persons directly or indirectly involved in hunting, trapping or guiding for all or part of their livelihood, while potentially very significant, are not address in this report."

These are examples of the scientific community stating in their own documents that fur harvesting by trapping and hunting is a lawful commercial activity that is a means to a livelihood, partially or completely. One of the signatories listed in the "Acknowledgements" who was given credit for reviews and providing expertise, was John Erb of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources who testified in the 2014 MN trial that fur trapping was recreational and, that while fur trappers were "compensated" for their pelts, it was not a means to a livelihood.

These examples would have gone a long way in tearing the State's defense apart, and taking the teeth out of John Erb's, so-called "credible" testimony, in my opinion.

I haven't been following this intently, can someone summarize what it is that is being attempted to be proven in this discussion?

As you can see from the statements from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, there was a clear line of demarcation made between the recreational hunting of game species, including nongame species, and the commercial harvesting of furbearers and fur-bearing predators. The wording, "Exceptions have been made for furbearers.." says it all.

I am going to prove by using various sources of information, including SCOTUS and U.S. Court of Appeals rulings, that the trapping and hunting - fur harvesting - of furbearers and fur-bearing predators is a commercial activity. By showing my evidence, I will show that those involved in commercial fur harvesting have Constitutional rights under the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that numerous States, by enacting statutes and regulations that discriminate against nonresident fur harvesters, are violating those rights.

All the evidence I will present should give any individual(s) or organization that wants to challenge a discriminatory State statute or regulation a solid foundation of information on which they can take to an attorney specializing in litigating Constitutional law or Business law cases. This is purely educational.

I don’t think there are very many trappers left that can claim their livelihood comes primarily from trapping..which was likely the spirit of the law back then. I surely don’t like the idea of non-residents running rampant and pillaging my state’s resources. I personally don’t think anything will get overturned and it will be business as usual. I understand everyone will have a differing opinion on this…

Landowners are protected from liability for those recreationally hunting or trapping in most states. You get rid of that exemption by classifying trapping as a commercial activity and you won't have fur.trapping on private land anywhere without having to buy insurance

Point being the State found that trapping is not commercial, when trying to get NR through.

Not sure how you can figure non residents as running rampant and pillaging if they are subject to the same laws as you.

Midlander, very few people derive ALL of their livelihood from commercial fur trapping. The vast majority of commercial fur harvesters are either operating as a not-for-profit hobby or as a for-profit avocation - meaning as a second, third, or fourth profit producing part-time or seasonal job. That is why it is important to use the word "avocation" when describing commercial fur harvesting.

I have never been afraid of competition while fur harvesting or as a commercial ADC operator. Competition makes you better. Operating as business makes you more successful as you have to think analytically. Which can make you better than your competition.

Please educate me on what particular evil non-resident commercial fur harvesters pose, as a class, that your fellow resident commercial fur harvesters don't pose?

Midlander, have you checked out the 2026 Furbearer Harvest Regulations Summary? You might want to. The MDNR has tossed "conservation" out the window. Nonresidents can now come in here and trap opossum, skunk, weasel, muskrats, coon, beaver, and coyote year round according to those new changes. Your fellow MI fur harvesters will be running rampant all across MI trying to get ahead of his brother fur harvesters. It is called free market competition without restraints. Thank you MDNR and NRC. I meant that sarcastically.

SnipperBBB, so get set up as a legitimate business - LLC or S Corp - and get insurance. You can get $1 M in general liability insurance for less than $500 a year. Then you can get into doing commercial ADC work as well. If you want commercial fur harvesting to become recreational, according to the SCOTUS, all you have to do is get your State of Ohio to prohibit the shipping and selling of all harvested furbearers and fur-bearing predators, and all the products thereof, in interstate commerce. Then you will have recreational fur harvesting. Be careful of what you wish for.

Rat Masterson, I know what the judge ruled. And she was wrong. I can prove it.The Plaintiffs did a great job of proving it was commercial and profitable. I've seen the Memorandum. District Courts make bad rulings. They get it wrong. That is why we have Court of Appeals and Supreme Courts at both the State and Federal levels. Didn't you see what the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation stated? I quoted it just as it was printed. If you doubt me, do your own research.

I really dont mind them taking all the coon, possum, weasel, muskrat and mink they can carry. I do mind non-residents getting into our bobcat, otter, marten and fisher. Those are limited take. I dont want our take reduced even further due to an increased harvest from NRs. Last thing we need is to go to a lottery system like some of our neighbors....

Gabby, Im very familiar with our trapping digest...please refer to my response to Trapdog...

I see your point, midlander. Thanks for your response.

Ohio already calls fur trapping recreational, why would we want it to be called commercial?

For all nonresidents, FYI, due to the State of Michigan still managing our furbearers and fur-bearing predators as a " recreational" activity, I would highly suggest you read our 2026 Furbearer Harvest Regulations Summary. On Muskrats, Raccoon, Coyote, and Beaver, we have a "Management Season" that begins the day after the recognized " Fur Harvesting Season" ends, with the "Management Season" ending the day before the recognized "Fur Harvesting Season" begins the following year. Thus, year round seasons on those species with a couple of minor stipulations dealing with public lands versus private lands.

Consider this SCOTUS ruling in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, Pp. 338-339 (1979), where the Court "HELD" in part, that, " States may promote the legitimate purpose of protecting and conserving wild animal life within their borders only in ways consistent with the basic principle the pertinent economic unit is the Nation; and when a wild animal becomes an article of commerce, its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State."

Midlander, since the State authorizes that harvested bobcat, otter, badger, fisher and marten, and all the products thereof, to be shipped and sold in interstate commerce, harvesting those species is a commercial activity. As a commercial activity that the State accords its own commercial fur harvesters to engage in, the State in accordance with federal laws and the Constitution is required to have residents and nonresidents harvesting them on equal footing unless the State has a narrowly defined substantial reason for discriminating against the nonresidents. But even then, under federal law, the State has to choose THE LEAST discriminatory alternative available.

Based on numerous SCOTUS ruling dealing with interstate commerce of natural resources, including wildlife, the State having a bag limit per person does not equate to the species being a restricted take. Under MI regulations right now there is an unlimited number of badger, bobcat, otter, fisher and marten that can be harvested each season and that the harvest is sustainable. Because there is no limit on the number of licenses to be sold, or a limit on the number of kill tags to be given out, or a quota on the total number of each of those species that can be harvested in each management unit and statewide, the State is implying, by their actions, that there are enough for every person in the State, to harvest their maximum bag limit each season. Increasing otter limits and changing the fisher/marten bag limits is not helping the State's argument that they need to be bag limited. Bag limits do absolutely nothing to restrict the harvest. Bag limits are for recreational hunting, not commercial harvesting for interstate commerce. I have a great case from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, that demonstrates this very topic.

SnipperBBB, just because your State labels fur harvesting as being recreational does not mean it is. The State is feeding you and the public a fabrication as a means of regulating the fur harvesters of Ohio instead of actually managing wildlife. By labeling and regulating fur harvesting as being recreational, the State can pit those who prefer to hunt furbearers and fur-bearing predators against those who prefer to trap them. They can treat each user group disparately (differently). They can keep nonresidents from participating in a recreational activity versus a commercial activity. Like I already have stated, if you want recreational fur harvesting then get legislation enacted so it is illegal to ship and sell harvested furbearers and fur-bearing predators in interstate commerce. If the furbearers, fur-bearing predators and all the products thereof, cannot be sold or shipped in interstate commerce there is no financial incentive to trap or hunt them except for a trophy or to eat them. Then you will have recreational fur harvesting and it would be the same as the recreational hunting of the recognized game species.

Do you people understand the Constitution and know what it means? Do you believe in it? Do you believe in your rights to freedom of choice, liberty, equal protection, and your pursuit of happiness? Even more basic, do you understand that fur harvesting, especially by trapping, is no different than nuisance wildlife removal, whether you are paying to do it or are being paid to do it as a commercial business? Both are service industries according to documents from The Wildlife Society and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

We can expand commercial fur harvesting opportunities , and protect commercial fur harvesting as an avocation that is essential to the maintenance and well-being of the Nation, that it is sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation, as it bears upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity. But we cannot protect or expand fur harvesting opportunities for all commercial fur harvesters if fur harvesting becomes legally a recreational activity.

public perception

Gabby Sr. everyone understands what your saying, but it doesnt change the outcome. Many states and cities create illegal gun laws that are unconstituitional yet they are on the books. Eventually some make it to the SC and get overturned and the next day they pass a different one. Minn. DNR doesn't want residents trapping let alone NR. If trappers have the money and the ability to take it to the SC and they would even hear the case MN DNR would come up with another way to block it. Just sayin.

I understand what you are saying Rat Masterson. I don't think it is so much the MN DNR. I think the two MN statutes that were challenged were initiated by some of MN's own trappers as they targeted just the trapping of furbearers and fur-bearing predators, not the hunting of furbearers and fur-bearing predators by nonresident commercial fur hunters. And it was done in such a way that it gave MN trappers a way of telling other States that MN does allow nonresident trappers to trap in MN. But they have to own land in MN and they cannot trap anywhere in the State other than on their own property. Whereas, nonresident commercial fur hunters can hunt certain furbearers and fur-bearing predators anywhere in the State on public lands and privately owned lands with permission. But I could be wrong in my assumption. It could very well by the MN DNR. I did some research and discovered who introduced the bills with those two statutes in them to the both houses of government in MN. I would like to contact them if I could find them and see if they can recall who brought these proposals to them for introduction and enactment.

Rat Masterson, NOTHING IS AN ABSOLUTE in the law or in wildlife management. That is why we have a judicial system. Every case is different. Nobody should seek legal recourse unless it is absolutely necessary as a last resort. But the organizations claiming to be protecting and defending fur harvesting, and fur harvesters, had better get their acts together and come up with the organizational structure and the financial means to take our causes to the legislatures and our cases all the way up to the SCOTUS if necessary. Instead of operating as good ole' boys clubs they need to be conducting business as a trade association. Remember, the management of furbearers and fur-bearing predators includes fur trappers, fur hunters, predator management operators, beaver and nutria management operators, urban nuisance wildlife management operators. It is not an exclusive club of just fur trappers. Just my opinion.

I don't want any leading from government officials and so called experts making any laws that affect my or your personal life. I am a free American citizen and I should be able to travel and pursue and enjoy anything that anyone else can do legally. If I so choose to skydive or smoke a pipe or trap hunt or fish ; the government or other people should not be looking for me to break their law . Mind your own business. You are just as big of a sinner as I am. Worry about your own things in life and be happy with what God gives you. Keep the government out of the problems. Settle your problems, one on one and don't try to control the big picture. Try to find happiness for your fellow man. Don't worry about if he is one step ahead or behind. The only one in total control is the good Lord. He will bring you peace and happiness.

Right,get rid of all borders everywhere,let all people go and do what they want where they want,let God sort them out lol.

I am sure the people that settled this country were not dependent upon the government. Now we are hoping the government will tell us how to be civilized and jail us with their laws and taxes. Freedom in this earthly world is living with Jesus Christ in the spiritual world.

The people that settled this country created the government and its laws and taxes. Good or bad, that's the way it happened.

"....................certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"

The last free people were the Indians before contact.
And it was brutal.
There are no truly free people today.
Civilization ended that.

Well said, Boco.

In Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762 (1884), J. Bradley in his concurring opinion, stated in part, " The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence..."

In Vivian I. Volvar, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fishers Island Lobstermen's Association, Inc., Fishers Island Conservancy, Inc., Movant-Amici Curiae (2003), United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, citing several SCOTUS rulings, stated, " The right to pursue a lawful calling has long been recognized as a fundamental right, see, e.g., Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832 (1897)
( The 'liberty' mentioned in [ the Fourteenth Amendment ] is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; [ and ] to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation."), and one that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. see Hicklin, 437 U.S. at 524, 98 S.Ct. 2482 ( Clause protects nonresident against discriminatory regulation of ability " to ply their trade, practice their occupation, or pursue a common calling within the State."); United Bldg., 465 U.S. at 219, 104 S.Ct. 1020 ( " Certainly, the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the Clause. Many, if not most, of our cases expounding the Privileges and Immunites Clause have dealt with this basic and essential activity.") (citation omitted)." See, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897); Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978); United Building Trades v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984).

These are known as your Freedom of Choice - aka your "pursuit of happiness," and it applies to your constitutional rights as a lawful commercial fur harvester.

Gabby, you gonna be the first to head over to Wisconsin and take advantage of this forgotten right..or you just hoping to stir the masses enough that someone else will do your bidding..? Asking for a friend

Midlander, don't you have one single contribution to make to the betterment of fur harvesting? I am at least trying to educate people to the legal fact that they have rights under the constitution if they qualify for them. I'm telling everybody what those in positions of authority don't want you to know and understand. What I am telling you goes much further than just applying to commercial fur harvesting. This information applies to all forms employment.

What are you hiding by your deflections? Are you afraid of competition? You don't think you are good enough to out trap a nonresident on your own turf? What you should be asking about is why aren't the NTA, the FTA, or the NTF fighting for your constitutional rights to work as a commercial fur harvester, predator control operator, beaver control operator, or just a general nuisance wildlife control operator in any State in the Nation that accords (allows) that same right to their own citizens?

COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE definition | Cambridge English Dictionary
1 week ago - a business or activity that is involved in buying and selling goods and services, in order to make a profit:

Selling fur is revenue. Revenue minus expenses is profit. No intention to make profit equals hobby.

IMHO engaging in a commercial activity does not make you a commercial trapper (Commercial enterprise).

"A hobby is any activity that a person pursues because they enjoy it and with no intention of making a profit. People operate a business with the intention of making a profit. Many people engage in hobby activities that turn into a source of income. However, determining if that hobby has grown into a business can be confusing."

IRS

Gabby, no disrespect intended, but I get the feeling if there was anything to what you are saying, it would have been fleshed out a long time ago. It feels like a sovereign citizen post to me, quoting all kinds of bs about the constitution and not needing drivers licenses and free 'travel' and bla bla bla...and at the end of the day, they get their arse thrown in jail.

Dirt, I have that same identical quote. Do you understand that what the IRS is stating there is that a commercial activity that is engaged in with no intention or attempt to be profitable is a not-for-profit hobby. One that is engaged in the same commercial activity, that is intentionally attempting to be profitable and is profitable three out of every five years, including the current tax year, is a for-profit business venture. That is from your same source - the IRS. So an activity that generates an income stream is a commercial activity. And based on the evidence you and I have both presented a commercial activity can be engaged in as a not-for-profit hobby, or it can be engaged in as a for-profit business venture. BUT, the one thing it cannot do because it generates an income stream is a recreational activity! Irrefutable legal fact. Since you like to look things up in your dictionary, look up the word "avocation" and apply it to this discussion then get back to me. The best description of commercial fur harvesting are the words "avocation" and "business venture."

Midlander, why would it have been fleshed out a long time ago? What is that "sovereign citizen" comment all about? Are you mentally stable? I am quoting SCOTUS rulings - irrefutable legal facts until some other SCOTUS ruling overturns them. And what is wrong with quoting the Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment? Am I educating you about things you don't want to hear?

If you get a chance,Gabby,you could check your messages…

"These factors are whether:
The taxpayer carries out activity in a businesslike manner and maintains complete and accurate books and records.
The taxpayer puts time and effort into the activity to show they intend to make it profitable.
The taxpayer depends on income from the activity for their livelihood.
The taxpayer has personal motives for carrying out the activity such as general enjoyment or relaxation.
The taxpayer has enough income from other sources to fund the activity
Losses are due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control or are normal for the startup phase of their type of business.
There is a change to methods of operation to improve profitability.
Taxpayer and their advisor have the knowledge needed to carry out the activity as a successful business.
The taxpayer was successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past.
Activity makes a profit in some years and how much profit it makes.
The taxpayer can expect to make a future profit from the appreciation of the assets used in the activity.
All factors, facts, and circumstances with respect to the activity must be considered. No one factor is more important than another."

My source does not say what you quoted.

"Livelihood" is the word that is the right found by Scotus. A man has a right to earn a livelihood.

Hate to tell you this but a hobby can be a recreational activity.

Mentally stable...guess it depends on who you ask
Ill be patiently waiting to see someone take the states to task on this issue.....
Nuff said from me....

" I am wondering how many people on here believe that fur trapping is recreational like a lot of State fish and game departments say it is? If so, why? What do you think makes it recreational?"

"Hobby Law and Legal Definition
A hobby is defined as an activity engaged in for pleasure or recreation, rather than for profit. A hobby may be a profitable activity, without profit being the main reason for participating in the hobby."

People seem to think that if you engage in a commercial activity somehow that makes you a commercial enterprise. Some trappers are engaged in a commercial enterprise, but the vast majority are not. When managing an activity primarily for recreational trappers ( the majority), it appears the courts will not apply the livelihood standard to the activity.

Does any of this mean that income from the sale of fur is not taxable and does not need to be reported as income?

Hobby income is supposed to be reported, Just not on a schedule C. Business Income

Dirt, I have everything you have quoted and then some. The majority of my definitions come from Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, a couple come from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, and a couple come from SCOTUS rulings other sources.

Are you familiar with IRC (Title 26 USCA, Sec. 183)? You can find it in the IRS Codes or you can look up in Black's Law Dictionary under the word "Hobby Loss."

Since Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., did not have a definition for the word, "avocation," I looked it up in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed., An "avocation" is: "(2) Customary employment: Vocation (3) A subordinate occupation pursued in addition to one's vocation, especially for enjoyment: Hobby."

In other words, commercial fur harvesting can be engaged in as a second, third, fourth, etcetera, part-time occupation (job) as a profit producing income stream and still be considered a part of one's livelihood.

Black' Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., defines a "livelihood" as "A means of supporting one's existence, especially financially.

The website https://lawinsider.com defines "Livelihood" as, " The full range of of means that individuals, families and communities utilize to make a living such as wage-based income, agriculture, foraging, other natural resource-based livelihoods, petty trade and bartering."

Dirt and Midlander, it has been a hoot discussing this with the two of you. I am just trying to educate everybody on their constitutional rights and how they relate to commercial fur harvesting. If I have stepped on some toes, tough, deal with it. I have a treatise to finish working on. I'll come back when I am finished with the final product.

good luck with your project!

So is the difference that you can't deduct expenses for hobby uncome? Why would anyone report that way?

Business income is subject to an additional 15.3 percent self employed tax. Income tax could be zero after standard deductions.

You could take the entire wild fur crop from last year, sell it, and it still wouldn't be 5% of what it'd take to actually do anything about changing things in regards to trapping being commercial as compared to recreational. There isn't enough money to make any noise.

Those that know it is commercial deep in their hearts will have to suffer as a result. It's a really sad ordeal.


Pushing it as commercial will undoubtedly help with fur prices is my thoughts.

Having conventions be gatherings for professional trade associations would be whole lot better than gathering in circles sniffing jars of canine anuses and talking about what muskrats were worth when they were 16 years old.

"Based on sealing records, license sales and the annual "Trapper Questionnaire," the Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimates 2,500 to 3,500 trappers in the state. There is a wide range of trappers, most are recreational trappers, and many trappers keep the fur. Some are fairly serious, and a few are very serious individuals who trap a lot of animals."

Right on the ADFG website.

It would be interesting to see if any State claims that trappers are primarily commercial, or in my case subsistence.