# 2 MN Hunters Join Suit



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Saturday, April 17, 2004
Minnesota amends hunting lawsuit

By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune

Two native North Dakotans now living in Minnesota but retaining family and hunting ties to their birth state have joined Minnesota's lawsuit that challenges North Dakota's nonresident hunting regulations.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's office filed an amended complaint Thursday with the U.S. District Court clerk's office in Bismarck, adding the two Minnesota residents as plaintiffs in the suit and requesting reasonable attorneys' fees for all individual plaintiffs.

Starkey Grove is described in the amended complaint as a native of North Dakota who still has family in the Wishek area, where "he has hunted for decades." He did not hunt waterfowl in 2003, the complaint says, but plans to do so in the future. The complaint also says he abandoned plans to purchase land in the Wishek area "because the nonresident hunting rules so substantially impaired his ability to use and enjoy the land for hunting."

The other new plaintiff is Charles Orvik, also a North Dakota native who is described as a co-owner with other family members of land in Eddy and Grand Forks counties in the amended complaint. The new complaint alleges Orvik, who hunts waterfowl and other game birds on that land, "continues to be unable to hunt on his own land with other members of his family during the periods when the season is closed to nonresidents."

Collin Peterson, a United States congressman from Minnesota, who was identified as a plaintiff in the original lawsuit, also is listed in the amended complaint, as is the state of Minnesota.

Peterson, Grove and Orvik are named in the amended complaint as plaintiffs eligible for the attorneys' fees. Minnesota filed its original lawsuit in March.

(Reach reporter Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected].)


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2004)

OOOoohhh boy, you guys should be able to jump all over these two f*ckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Pardon my french) Members of your ownbelongingnow turned against your governments decisions. What does MN do to people??? :evil:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

This was a necessary addition to support certain claims in the original suit that allege ND is wrongfully restricting NR landowners. Neither the State of MN nor CP is a ND landowner, so neither of those original two plaintiffs had "standing" to bring the NR Landowner-based claims - ND would have had those claims tossed early if Hatch hadn't added a plaintiff with "standing".

I know for a fact that Hatch's office was working hard to recruit plaintiffs for this suit prior to the original filing, including ND R's involved in commercialized hunting. For this recent addition, I'd guess they consciously chose NR landowners who were once ND R's so as to mitigate the personal playground implications.

I've always thought this part of the suit is utter bs. Land ownership and regulation of game have always been separate and distinct issues. IMHO, the merits of the case will be decided on the R/NR distinction alone - the NR landowner angle is purely a red herring.


----------



## duckslayer (Oct 30, 2003)

:sniper:


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Why should it get ugly?They own land in N.D.,let them hunt it!!Like I said in another area,I only hunt snowgeese in N.D.,because I have the best deer,duck, and walley fishing anyone can ask for 15 min. from my front door!If these two guys feel they have to join in on this lawsuit in order to assure they can hunt their own land so-be-it!I put up with all kinds of nr fishermen every year and a hell of alot of them own land here,including N.D.'ers,but you don't hear me pissin&moanin' about them ,and they dont have closed days to fish,only one method is closed and that is northern pike spearing ,which isn't fishing anyway!!!I do believe res. having their own little playground to themselves in N.D.,is probably in jeapordy, not from nr. lawsuits,but from your own elected officials looking for the almighty dollar.Money talks,and bull**** walks!!!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

snow, so if I buy a 40 in some Western state, should I be entitled to the same big game species availability and/or draw preference and license price as a R, just becasue I own my 40? Sounds like a recipe for R's of low-income states to get frozen-out of hunting opportunities.

And all those NR cabin owners - did their ownership impede you from getting at the fish, and when there was a bunch of them, did they chase the fish down to Iowa?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Great point Dan!


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

If fish could fly,I'm sure they may have migrated to Iowa where they would be safe,'cause all the Iowa fishermen are up here.I get your point,but what I was trying to say is maybe these guys are affraid of losing hunting on their own land.I don't know about the western states laws on landownership and licenses,but we're talking migratory birds here are we not?Now on that note,if elk could fly I would pursue them also,or deer, or antelope,etc.,etc.,!!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> but we're talking migratory birds here are we not?


MN have the right to regulate the LOW fish when on the US side? WY have the right to regulate the elk that may venture over four states' borders in a year while they're in WY?

The migratory bird theme is a sexy part of the MN suit, but like elk, fish or anything else, subject to broad Federal frameworks, individual states have always had the bulk of regulatory authority and control over migratory birds when within their borders.


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Is it not a fact that states have to stay within federal guidlines while setting their seasons and limits!?So who has the ultimate say-so?Surely not you or I or any other poor soul out there that loves to hunt waterfowl.Like I said,look out for your own elected officials,The Mn. lawsuit won't amount to diddly-squat!Leave things as they are far as I'm concerned,but closing out nrs wont solve anything.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

You'll never be able to intelligently discuss this topic with some of these guys. Do us all a favor and just stay home next Fall if you can't understand the concept that the more hunters there are the faster the ducks will leave the state. This discussion is useless, otherwise. NO ONE has said they want to "lock-out" NRs....but limits will have to be set in the future especially if this dry cycle continues. If you do come to the state try the DL area. As it looks now that will be the major water area as everything else is pretty much high and dry. The ducks will be harrassed, non-stop, and the locals will either be in SD or someones freezer after just one week. Sorry but it's starting to get just a little old listening to the same one sided BS that continuously leaves out most of the major points in order to fit what is being said.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Is it not a fact that states have to stay within federal guidlines while setting their seasons and limits!?So who has the ultimate say-so?


Fed portion is akin to the skeleton. Even with migratory birds, states (even yours) have always played the role of organs and tissue.



> but closing out nrs


Wouldn't dream of it - just gotten to be a lot of them and we need to restrict them to the point ND hunting stays better, a lot better, than where they come from.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

SnowFlake is just one of the Rich Yuppy sodas.....


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Gfer3 I think youre lettin your mouth overload your ***!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

MN sportsman need to be aware of linkage in these law suits, both the Farm Bureau trespass suit and MN suit. It is not about property rights or waterfowl. Understand this, the suers, intend to commercialize all species for hunting....deer, upland, waterfowl, anything that can be sold. Linkage. These law suits hide the real intent of the resource extractors. Find the pea under the shell. The day AG Hatch filed I requested all supporting correspondance from ND to his office. Haven't heard a peep yet. Don't think I will either. It will take a Freedom of Information request.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ditto! If anyone thinks they are just going after the waterfowl there crazy. If the suites are successful the next thing will be the upland and then the deer hunting.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

As far as a NR buying land in ND for hunting,then getting mad because he cant hunt there the whole season.The 14 day limitation has been in place since the early 70s.Those people knew the rules before they bought the land,I dont feel sorry for them one bit.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Dick Monson said:


> It is not about property rights or waterfowl. Understand this, the suers, intend to commercialize all species for hunting.


Hey NR's. The above is the absolute truth. If all this bs comes to pass, you average joes won't be hunting in ND because access will be as bad here as it is is your home state, and you'll pay through the nose in ND too, so you might as well just stay at home then. Which the vast majority of you will do. Those rocket scientists in the hunting "industry" can't even see how what they are doing only helps landowners willing to sell out to the big boys. The small town bars, cafes, hotels, etc. will be dead as doornails if Froelich's lawsuit wins. The Mossy Oaks and other out of state hunting corporations will be the only winners. Texas here we come. Only probelm, ND's population is 600,000 not 25,000,000. The average joe in Texas has a few bucks, the average joe in ND has peanuts in comparison. Wake up.


----------



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

tb, That's why I joined up today, I'm done fighting back and forth. Besides, you wore me down to the nub. I never favored the lawsuit to begin with anyway, mostly I'm just ticked at the NR cheap shots. I will have to learn to bite the lip at times I suppose when that BS rolls around but overall I just want to freelance hunt North Dakota with my kid someday, and I figured that this is maybe a step in the right direction for the future of our hunting out there. That's how I see it I guess.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey GP we can get this done if we stick together, if you joined up today welcome aboard (sounds kinda dumb you have been here longer than I have) if you ever feel like wasting a little steel shot i would be glad to hunt with you

:beer:


----------



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

Thanks Open Field. :beer: I've certainly wasted more than my share of steel through the years. Boy would that be interesting to figure out sometime.  Naaah, I'd rather not know. :lol:


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Hey Dick,

Please explain to me what motive does Farm Bureau have in 
the lawsuit? Do the majority of their constituents, i.e. farmers,
approve of the tresspassing lawsuit?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

State Farm Bureau orgainizations across the midwest are embroiled in lawsuits against hunters, fishermen, and conservation efforts. The Rocky Mountain states particularily. The shell corp that NDFB formed to sue on the trespass law is a knock off of a posse shell corp formed for the same reason in another state. Farm Bureau cannot get it's agenda of resource extraction on outdoor isssues thru the legislature or the ballot box so nationally it has turned to lawsuits. The attempt to over turn the trespass law failed repeatedly in our legislature.

Farm Bureau recieves it's operating money from member dues-$43. If you buy NodaK Ins., you are a member, an none voting member. Because although they claim to support citizen involvement, they only let farmers vote, but they still take the dues money from all. You are good enough to pay dues but not to vote. Very aristocratic!

By bashing urban folks, esp Fargo-Grand Forks, etc, they are able to pose a scapegoat to draw membership. On the theory that everybody loves to hate the big guy. Shallow thinkers are drawn to it. A few legislators use the same practice to their discredit.

A strong part of NDFB membership, (voting), comes from the Devils Lake Basin, where fee hunting has been in vogue for generations. They are my ducks if they are worth money, public ducks if they are not. The current president of NDFB has publicly advocated farmers take barter rather than cash for a lease. (Harder to trace I suppose). In South Dakota some years back the president of SDFB was cited and fined, and also got home confinement for selling personal gratis tags to NR deer hunters. I believe he told the undercover agent to shoot the deer from the pickup window. He is still president of SDFB I believe.

If Farm Bureau members (voting) are in favor of the suit I have yet to meet one. This came right from the state officers. Imagine the image they portray to the public; rigid, devisive, uncompromising, authoritarian, undemocratic, denigerating the public trust doctrine, and proud of it.


----------

