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.