"There is a clear difference between the purchase of products and services - activities inherently economic in nature - and the engagement in purely recreational, sporting activity."
This line disturbs me. While some may see it as a victory for states now, what has happened is the ruling and the merits upon that ruling are now legal precedence. What happens when an outfitter or hunter who has "purchased services" comes with a lawsuit? Well, according to this ruling there may be legal merit... and that disturbs me.
This is clearly not "over" and this ruling may hurt other states.