It ain't up for a public vote... that eliminates the minority who are vocal or active on this topic being the majority of voices actually heard. Now it's about existing laws on the books and how they apply to this situation in MN, then anywhere else.

BobMo,
When this thread first started, I didn't understand what it was about. It looked as if trappers where trying to take away a states rights just so they can trap anywhere they please. Now I understand the commerce and constituitional aspect and how this affects all trappers. Thank you for clarifying the intentions and reasoning behind this in a civil manner. A lot of cussing and arguing would not have been good for this cause.

This is just a single issue lawsuit, but someday I'd like to see these go to a federal court.

Fur trapping is clearly a commercial activity that results in 100's of millions of dollars of sales annually.

If I buy a non-resident license in Iowa, it costs 9 times as a resident license. And if an Iowa resident buys a non-resident license in Nebraska, it costs 14 times as much as a Nebraska resident license.

Other commercial enterprises do not have different costs and rules for residents and non-residents. If I bought a farm in Iowa, I would not be charged a different property tax. If I opened a McDonalds franchise in Iowa, my business license would not cost me more because I live in Nebraska. And the same holds true if an Iowa resident took part in those commercial activities in Nebraska.

How trapping fur for money has somehow gotten lumped into the same category as recreational hunting, as far as fees and regulations go, I have no idea. But it differs substantially from those recreational activities in that we sell the product of our labor.

To give it a little perspective, in 1984, non-resident commercial fishermen in Alaska sued because of much higher non-resident commercial fishing licenses.

The non-resident fishermen won the case, and "the court found that while the state can charge higher fees to nonresidents, the additional payment must be related to the nonresidents' share of the state's cost of managing Alaska's commercial fisheries".

In the final appeal, the courts ruled that the fee charged to non-resident commercial fishermen could be no more that 50% above the fee charged to resident commercial fishermen.

Personally I think we're lucky that trapping is regulated as a recreational activity vs a commericial enterprise. What kind of costs, licenses, fees, regs does a commercial fisherman, as compared to a regular guy, have? (both resident and non-resident) How about federal as well as state? Do they have not only fish and game but dept. of labor etc? On the federal level is there IRS, OSHA, EPA and those other nightmares to deal with that at present we don't have to? If trapping has to be redefined to pass this (or shove it down others throats, depending on your point of view) I see it as a potential red tape, central planning polit-buro nightmare that'll help eliminate the regular folks.
Maybe it's on count of this wolf mess that was shoved on us through courts with hired blood draining mercenary vampires (aka lawyers) but I'm suspicious and think it may be a case of "careful what you wish for".

Actually, you do have those same requirements, whether you are following them or not.

In the recent past I was vehemently opposed to any type of "commercial" label with recreational fur trapping. But after a couple of PM exchanges with guys presenting the other side, I changed my view once more information enlightened me.

My initial fears were based on the unknown, too. But individual trappers without employees or payrolls dont have osha or dept labor issues. EPA and IRS already apply... no changes there

As for the majority of trappers everywhere who are resident only and hobbyists? No changes or impact at all. Steady as she goes

I think it's fair to say that trapping has been seen as a recreational activity by many game departments and is viewed that way by the general public. As a commercial activity should there be catch limits set to manage the resource as there is for commercial fishing? If limits are set will it be catch all you can until the limit is met? This would encourage early season catch when fur isn't at best quality and could make it difficult for the trapper who sees trapping as a sport and not just a job to participate fully.

I actually support non-resident trapping. Even though this suit doesn't redefine the status of trapping it can make it viewed differently. For some that will be an advantage but I'm not as sure as those bringing the suit that there will be no unforeseen negative results.

The states that have a biological need to implement quotas already do so.

And we all know that biology is the only consideration in game management.

I don't have a crystal ball. I do know that some of the nonsense going on with trapping chaps my but and untill now not much has happenened to improve things. For quite a few years we have in fact lost ground. The idea that we should sit on our hands, hiding what we do, and try not to get noticed aint working. The law is quite clear on interstate commerce. I am all for this move.

But your question was about biology. "As a commercial activity should there be catch limits set to manage the resource as there is for commercial fishing?"

So what about deer hunting or fishing? Is that a recreational activity? Why doesn't Mn limit that to residents only? I tell you why,cause its a cash cow! The whole trapping for residents in is because of a few disgruntled trappers that think NR trappers are gonna take fur they can't catch anyway,just like SD,plain and simple.I guess now we've opened up a whole new can of worms and I will be donating to the cause,even though I will never trap in MN or SD It burns me in the south part of my body!....B....

Minnesota bans non-resident trapping BECAUSE it is a commercial activity. But, the Constitution makes clear that they cannot ban non-residents from a commercial activity, and there are dozens of court decisions over the years to back it up.

This is a slam dunk case.

I agree with you 100% I told Phil I will donate right out of the gate and will add more as needed.I think this is a good cause!....B.....

the best posts on this thread are the ones where someone goes on and on about how this is wrong or wont work, but in the end they then say..." but im all for non resident trapping..."

lol

I for one sure hope the Minnesota Trappers Association does its job and keeps this from happening since the majority of the members have voted not to allow non-resident trapping time after time. I guess we will see what the agenda really is.

The MTA no longer has a say in the matter. Strictly up to the courts.

That would seem to not be true, they have gotten involved with other issues going through the courts involving the DNR, and accomplished some great things for the trappers of Minnesota. Can't get involved? Don't want to stop it? Not sure, but i hope they do what they can.

LabelTrapper it's an issue of constitutionality. The MTA probably will have no role. It will be up to Mn state attornys to ague against if there is an argument. If it is determined that fur trapping is indeed an interstate commerce you will need to start a campaign to ammend the U.S. constitution if you are determined to stop nonresidents engaging in commercial harvest of fur in Mn.