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.

Dirt, a recreational fur harvester, whether they are a hunter or a trapper, according to the SCOTUS in Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), is a person that traps and hunts furbearers and fur-bearing predators for trophies and meat - for self consumption (subsistence). They are not selling, bartering, or trading the harvested animals or any part of them for any consideration of value. They are doing it for recreation and sport. It is recreation and sport, not because of the actions of the individual, but because of the actions of the State. If the State does not prohibit the harvested animals and all the products thereof from being shipped and sold in interstate commerce it is a commercial activity irregardless of the actions of the individual.

If you read the Baldwin ruling from 1978, and you understand that the Lacey Act was enacted in 1900, you will see that when the SCOTUS ruled the hunting of elk was done as a recreation and a sport that the hunters in 1978 had no choice but to hunt elk and other big game as a recreation and a sport because the State and Federal government took their choice to market hunt big game away from them 78 years earlier. They had no choice but to hunt elk and other big game for trophies and meat as a recreation and sport. This is all about the actions of the State.

As for the Trapper Questionaire, I know from experience those questionnaires are written to elicit a specific predetermined response. But the bottom line is this; As far as the SCOTUS is concerned it is the actions of the State that makes fur harvesting a commercial activity, not the actions of the individual.

Subsistence is not defined here in Alaska as self-consumption. It allows for customary trade in cash.

Since federal law, in all things involving commerce, supersedes State law, subsistence then would be considered as commercial.

I forgot what the point of all this is.....or if there is one.

"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?"

"Obtain a Commercial Crewmember License
Anyone working aboard a commercial fishing vessel in Alaska must have a Commercial Crewmember License, which costs $60 for Alaska residents and $200 for non-residents."

Assistant Guide License

Application Fee: $200 (non-refundable).
License Fee: $310 for residents and $620 for non-residents.
Total: $510 for residents and $820 for non-residents.

Plus that non-resident hunting license.

Commercial don't protect you from higher license fees.

IMO trapping is best defined in the gray area, because defining it as commercial opens a whole new hosts of rules, royalty payments, competitive bidding with limited entry.

Dirt, there are State statutes passed on a regular basis all across the Nation that discriminate against nonresidents. And some of them are permutable, according to the SCOTUS, others are not. Unless the State of Alaska has a substantial reason for the disparate treatment of nonresidents in the license fee schemes you posted, that is not related to economic protectionism, then they should be challenged. Somebody should look into why there is a differential in license fees between residents and nonresidents and get a response in writing. I know Alaska has already lost in the SCOTUS three times when it comes to violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause (twice) and once for violating the Commerce Clause. Look up Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952) (invalidating statute of territory of Alaska charging nonresident commercial fishermen ten times more for commercial fishing license than residents.); Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978) (invaliding a statute that favored residents of Alaska over nonresidents in getting hired to work on the Alaskan pipeline.) When it comes to employment you can not discriminate against nonresidents just because they are citizens of another State. I can give you a long list of those type of rulings.

All I am trying to do here is inform people of their employment rights under the Constitution and federal laws. Everybody needs to know their rights under the Constitution so they can defend them from the government. Trying to fly under the radar does not cut it. That steals everybody's rights away.

How about States' rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Look up how amendments are to be passed for the U.S. Constitution and how the 14th got ratified without following the U.S. Constitution .