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.