Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
06-08-2005, 02:39 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 220
Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
-
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11845027.htm
Posted on Wed, Jun. 08, 2005
Judge throws out Minnesota challenge to ND hunting rules
DALE WETZEL
Associated Press
BISMARCK, N.D. - A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota legal challenge of North Dakota's restrictions on out-of-state hunters, concluding the rules do not violate constitutional protections for doing business across state borders.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland said hunters are interested in sport, not business, and are not affected by the U.S. Constitution's language on regulation of interstate commerce.
"The purpose for the nonresident hunters' interstate movement is the pursuit of a purely recreational activity - hunting," Hovland wrote. "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."
Hovland's decision did not rely upon a new federal law, approved by Congress last month, that said states may favor resident hunters and anglers in drawing up state game and fish regulations.
The Minnesota lawsuit, which was filed in March 2004, challenged North Dakota laws and hunting regulations that restrict where, and when, out-of-state sportsmen may hunt, and how much they must pay to do so.
Among the rules to which Minnesota objected was a ban on out-of-state duck hunters during the first week of duck season; restrictions on where, and for how long, visiting duck hunters may hunt; and a ban on out-of-state hunters for the first week of pheasant season. The pheasant-hunter restriction applied only to land controlled by the state Game and Fish Department.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed the lawsuit against North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven and Dean Hildebrand, the state game and fish director. U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and two other Minnesota residents were later added as plaintiffs.
-
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11845027.htm
Posted on Wed, Jun. 08, 2005
Judge throws out Minnesota challenge to ND hunting rules
DALE WETZEL
Associated Press
BISMARCK, N.D. - A federal judge has dismissed a Minnesota legal challenge of North Dakota's restrictions on out-of-state hunters, concluding the rules do not violate constitutional protections for doing business across state borders.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland said hunters are interested in sport, not business, and are not affected by the U.S. Constitution's language on regulation of interstate commerce.
"The purpose for the nonresident hunters' interstate movement is the pursuit of a purely recreational activity - hunting," Hovland wrote. "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."
Hovland's decision did not rely upon a new federal law, approved by Congress last month, that said states may favor resident hunters and anglers in drawing up state game and fish regulations.
The Minnesota lawsuit, which was filed in March 2004, challenged North Dakota laws and hunting regulations that restrict where, and when, out-of-state sportsmen may hunt, and how much they must pay to do so.
Among the rules to which Minnesota objected was a ban on out-of-state duck hunters during the first week of duck season; restrictions on where, and for how long, visiting duck hunters may hunt; and a ban on out-of-state hunters for the first week of pheasant season. The pheasant-hunter restriction applied only to land controlled by the state Game and Fish Department.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed the lawsuit against North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven and Dean Hildebrand, the state game and fish director. U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and two other Minnesota residents were later added as plaintiffs.
06-08-2005, 08:04 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
Finally, a judge that actually has COMMON SENSE! Imagine that, knowing that there is a difference between a recreational sport and interstate commerce. WOW! Maybe there is hope
06-09-2005, 07:10 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Memphis TN USA
Posts: 3,445
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
Finally, a judge that actually has COMMON SENSE! Imagine that, knowing that there is a difference between a recreational sport and interstate commerce. WOW! Maybe there is hope
What if I work 5 days a week and then I fish commerically on the weekends but I just call it a HOBBY; should I be treated exactly like the guys beating the banks with a spinning rod? There are millions and millions made off of the hunting industry every year and whether you consinder it to be or not, hunting is interstate commerce.
06-09-2005, 08:29 AM
#7
Typical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cologne, MN
Posts: 510
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
It was a waste of time to put that bill out there but I can tell you that it was done to get some attention to a growing problem. South Dakota was the first neighboring state to do it and that was to limit the non residents to 10 days for pheasant season. Then north dakota followed and I believe they also limited duck/goose seasons as well. Yet in Minnesota, they can come here and enjoy unlimited pheasants, duck, geese, and fish walleyes to their heart's content. Is that fair?? I understand that they have more pheasants/ducks/geese than Minnesota which if anything should mean more opportunity than less but it's going to bite them back some day. There was another bill that was presented in Minnesota aimed at North and South Dakota which would require them to license their boats 4 times per summer if they fish our waters and it wouldn't be cheap. It was pulled recently and I'm not sure why at this point. I heard it had to due with funding. My point is that all limiting non residents is going to do is hurt sportsmen and also the businesses that make money from them. There are tons of North and South Dakotans that fish our waters and have done so for many years. Some day soon it appears we will be joining other states and limiting outsiders as well. Not sure how I feel about that. Just wanted to say that I have nothing against any hunters from North/South Dakota as they don't make the laws...
06-09-2005, 09:13 AM
#8
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 125
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
The resident, non-resident issue seems to be a big thing in the mid-western states. I live in Mass, and hunt the New England area, and the regulations for residents and Non-residents are pretty much the same. It's a bit more difficult to draw a moose tag as a non-resident, but that's about it.
I would have to say, in this Minnesota/North Dakota dispute, the only way to make a change is to make people want a change, so Minn. should adopt a states reciprocity clause into their regs. Any state that limits the number of days afield of non-residents shall be subject to the same days afield restriction. N.D. hunters can't expect to receive privelege out of state better than they're willing to extend to others. If they want more time to hunt in Minn., they can allow other more time to hunt in N.D.
I would have to say, in this Minnesota/North Dakota dispute, the only way to make a change is to make people want a change, so Minn. should adopt a states reciprocity clause into their regs. Any state that limits the number of days afield of non-residents shall be subject to the same days afield restriction. N.D. hunters can't expect to receive privelege out of state better than they're willing to extend to others. If they want more time to hunt in Minn., they can allow other more time to hunt in N.D.
06-09-2005, 09:48 AM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Memphis TN USA
Posts: 3,445
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
I just want to say that I whole heartedly agree with the states rights and their right to limit access UNTIL it comes to limiting access to Federal Land and then it's a different story. Where Federal Land is concerened access should be equal to everyone regardless of what state the federal land is surrounded by and regardless of what state a person lives.
06-09-2005, 10:30 AM
#10
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 220
RE: Judge throws out Minnesota Lawsuit
ORIGINAL: silentassassin
I just want to say that I whole heartedly agree with the states rights and their right to limit access UNTIL it comes to limiting access to Federal Land and then it's a different story. Where Federal Land is concerened access should be equal to everyone regardless of what state the federal land is surrounded by and regardless of what state a person lives.
I just want to say that I whole heartedly agree with the states rights and their right to limit access UNTIL it comes to limiting access to Federal Land and then it's a different story. Where Federal Land is concerened access should be equal to everyone regardless of what state the federal land is surrounded by and regardless of what state a person lives.
Nemont