# MN loses appeal



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

I heard on the radio that MN lost it's appeal today against ND over NR hunting issues!


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

Good. Than we can FINALY put this black-eye makin' B^LLSH!T behind us and move forward. Maybe Mr. Hatch will sue Canada for all of that clean air they got up there. :eyeroll:

What a d!ck

Gunny


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Federal appeals court upholds North Dakota hunting restrictions
Associated Press
Published Thursday, August 03, 2006

FARGO, N.D. (AP) - North Dakota's restrictions on nonresident hunters are legal, a federal appeals court says in rejecting a challenge from Minnesota.

North Dakota allows residents to hunt ducks and geese a week earlier than nonresidents, and the state charges out-of-state hunters more for licenses. Minnesota officials argued that the restrictions discriminate against outsiders and violate interstate commerce provisions.

The 8th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Congress allows states to regulate such activities.

"We've maintained all along that states have the right to manage their natural resources. That includes hunting and fishing," said Don Larson, a spokesman for North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven. "We're pleased the court has reaffirmed this decision."

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said challenging North Dakota's restrictions was "the right thing to do" when the lawsuit was filed in March 2004. He said he did not expect Congress to pass legislation a year later that allows states to regulate fish and wildlife activities.

"I did not anticipate an amendment being thrown on an anti-terrorism bill," said Hatch, referring to the 2005 legislation.

In discussing the interstate commerce question, the judges said congressional action "has made Minnesota's contention constitutionally moot."

They cited a Montana case in rejecting Minnesota's contention that North Dakota rules are discriminatory.

"Just like Montana elk hunting, waterfowl hunting in North Dakota is a recreation and a sport," the panel's ruling said. "Waterfowl hunting does not provide a means to the nonresident's livelihood. Equality in access to North Dakota waterfowl does not constitute a fundamental right basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union."

State lawmakers should be allowed to decide hunting regulations, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.

"It's always a difficult balancing act between those hunters within North Dakota ... and the hospitality industry that wants to welcome anyone who wants to come and spend their money," Stenehjem said. "The proper place to do that balancing act is in the Legislature.

"I didn't think this was a good case for Minnesota from the beginning," he said.

North Dakota changed its hunting rules after the number of waterfowl hunters grew from 5,500 people in 1990 to 30,000 in 2001. Resident hunters said they were being squeezed out of prime hunting land by nonresidents.

Besides banning out-of-state waterfowl hunters for the first week of the season, North Dakota excluded pheasant hunters from certain lands during the first week of the season, and raised nonresident license fees. A waterfowl license for visitors was increased from $10 to $85.

Despite those changes, the number of out-of-state hunters in North Dakota continues to increase every year, Stenehjem said.

When the North Dakota law was passed, Hatch said some Minnesota legislators talked about barring nonresidents from fishing in their state for the first two weeks of the season.

"When we started this suit, we did stop that legislation from pursuing," he said. "Hopefully we can continue to hold that off. I think it would be a bad idea."


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Hatch says:



> When the North Dakota law was passed, Hatch said some Minnesota legislators talked about barring nonresidents from fishing in their state for the first two weeks of the season.
> 
> "When we started this suit, we did stop that legislation from pursuing," he said. "Hopefully we can continue to hold that off. I think it would be a bad idea."


Man - what a bull**** spin from a looser!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Good! That one is put to bed.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

jhegg

The idea may have come from a loser but why is that such a bull**** idea?

I think it is a great idea but like Hatch, I realize that the tourism industry would never allow it over here. (out of the sportsmen's hands)

I just wish you guys would volunteer, seeing as how you acknowledge that it is the same problem you have with NR hunters but keep telling us to do what you have (unsuccessfully) done, even though you know we can't.

Anybody willing to sell off the cabin in OT County and keep the jetskis and fishing boats at home? Hell, run em on Devils Lake or Ashtibula or Sak. You guys keep saying how your water resources are better than Mn's anyway. 
I volunteered for your cause.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bert,


> "When we started this suit, we did stop that legislation from pursuing," he said. "Hopefully we can continue to hold that off. I think it would be a bad idea."


Now he is making it sound like he did it as a favor to ND fisherman. That is what I was referring to.

However, the whole idea was bull**** from the beginning. MN excludes nr's from several season's, noteably wild rice and elk. I just can not comprehend the idea that any nr should be able to dictate to another state what their hunting regulations should be. Hatch did this purely as a political stunt. I hope MN residents are capable of recognizing this as such and remember at the ballot box. We will see.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> Apply now for Minnesota elk hunt (2006-06-20)
> The July 14 deadline to apply for one of eight permits to hunt the 2006 Minnesota elk hunt is approaching.
> 
> The hunt is being held to reduce the elk population, located in a zone around Grygla, from the present level of 55 animals. Two of the eight permits will be for a legal antlered bull, while the remaining six permits will allow the harvest of antlerless elk only.


[/quote]

You wonder why NR's can't hunt Elk in Minnesota?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

GP, Jim's point is that had the lawsuit been successful NR could not have been excluded as they should be! Nor could MN continue the practice of no spear fishing and higher priced license!

It is all about keeping controls where they belong and that is with the states not the courts, or the Feds in Washington. This really prevented the next step of going to a Nation wide waterfowl license and really could have limited the states on setting dates, hunting hours, etc....

Bert is stirring the pot, and should be ignored and the rest of us including myself need to let this issue die regardless of how riled one gets over the issue or posts made by others!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This lawsuit was just another attempt by MN to bully us around. If you do your research and look at the history of these two states, the lawsuit and bullying have gone on for years. What MN hasn't learned is...it always makes ND stronger when they try these antics.

Not saying that MN people aren't good people. I have lots of friends over there, but you if you read the history books, MN has tried this many times over in different ways.

Bert: If you want support the two week restrictions, go ahead, but if it happens, you won't see ND begging for a lawsuit. We don't try and bully other states around. Actually I would be glad to see our residents stay here and come west to fish. It still won't get rid of those jetski's, tubers, and waterskiers over there that you complain about.


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

Bert said:


> I just wish you guys would volunteer, seeing as how you acknowledge that it is the same problem you have with NR hunters but keep telling us to do what you have (unsuccessfully) done, even though you know we can't.
> 
> I volunteered for your cause.


Bert that is not a problem. I used to fish and buy stuff in MN all the time. I can say that last year was the first year I bought a State Park sticker or visited one since. I also live on the border so it is an adjustment for me as I now have to drive farther to get to the places that offer the same. You on the other hand live in the cities right? If so the better comparison would be to stay out of WI or IA or something you live 1/2 mile from. I can see MN from my office window. I choose to avoid things when they do things I don't agree with. I have a number of other organizations I boycott too if you want to know what they are let me know and I can PM you. Seems your just bitter that some in your state still come here to enjoy our state while some of our guys go there to enjoy yours. Either way good luck in the upcoming seasons.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

live 2 hunt,

Don't take the bullying personel. The seven county metro area has been bullying the rest of the state (MN) for years.

Just like Fargo here in ND.

Oh dear did I say that :eyeroll: Let the shooting begin :sniper:

I am gone to the Angle :toofunny:


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> GP, Jim's point is that had the lawsuit been successful NR could not have been excluded as they should be! Nor could MN continue the practice of no spear fishing and higher priced license!


Yeah I know, and I agree.



> I just can not comprehend the idea that any nr should be able to dictate to another state what their hunting regulations should be. Hatch did this purely as a political stunt.


Yes, and believe me I'll be just a little bent out of shape when we produce our first Kangaroo here and an Aussie draws the permit via the court system.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

The sad part of all this was the complete waste of money that could have been used elsewhere, and that ND in particular can ill afford. Wouldn't it have been better utilized by each state's respective natural resources/G&F Depts, rather than pee it away it on a pointless legal battle?...

I would like to see ND Attorney General's Office counter-sue Hatch personally for legal fees, based on a frivolous lawsuit...


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

I would pay to help fund that lawsuit!
:beer:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

HELL I'LL DO YOU ONE BETTER. I'M FROM MINNESOTA AND I'LL BUY YOU 2 ROPES AND TREE TO HANG HATCH AND PETERSON FROM. BY THE WAY CONGRATULATONS ON THE WIN.


----------

