# Dennis Anderson on the Hatch Lawsuit



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dennis Anderson: A win might be a loss 
Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune 
January 28, 2005 ANDY0128

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch on Thursday asked a federal judge in Bismarck, N.D., to declare illegal North Dakota's restrictions on non-resident bird hunters.

Seeking summary judgment of a lawsuit he filed last March, Hatch said North Dakota's restrictions on when and where non-resident duck and pheasant hunters can seek birds violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In an interview, Hatch said the "real victims" of restrictions against non-resident North Dakota hunters -- and similar attempts by Minnesota to retaliate against North Dakota anglers -- are owners of cafes, sporting goods stores and outfitting businesses.

"Our issue is the free flow of commerce," Hatch said. "The ability of people to make a living."

In recent years, North Dakota has limited the times and places non-resident bird hunters can seek game in that state. Some North Dakotans say the nearly 30,000 non-residents who hunt ducks in their state each fall and the outfitters who serve them are squeezing out "average guy" hunters who have limited access to hunting spots. About half of North Dakota's waterfowlers are from Minnesota.

An effort in the last Minnesota legislative session to similarly limit North Dakotans who fish in Minnesota didn't pass.

Chances that Hatch's lawsuit might succeed perhaps were buoyed last year when Arizona's restrictions on non-resident elk hunters were ruled in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Unknown -- if Hatch succeeds in his effort to throw out North Dakota's non-resident bird-hunting restrictions -- is whether game management would benefit or lose. The fear here is it would be the latter.

In defense of filing the suit, Hatch said Thursday that rules arbitrarily set to discriminate against non-resident hunters and anglers -- whether in North Dakota or Minnesota -- are unfair and illegal, and should be struck down.

Hatch said North Dakota makes no claim its non-resident bird hunting regulations were implemented to protect wildlife.

"If they raised that argument, fine," he said. "But no one in North Dakota is saying these rules have an effect on game management."

In briefs filed Thursday, Hatch said North Dakota developed its rules because it believed it had a hunter problem, not a wildlife management problem.

Discrimination on that basis is illegal, Hatch said, because hunting and fishing are big businesses, and people have a right to move freely among states engaging in those businesses.

Joining Hatch in the lawsuit is U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, who in an affidavit claims that, "Because of my busy schedule, it is virtually impossible for me to choose a zone and a date in advance [to hunt in North Dakota]."

Lame and silly as Peterson's complaint is, North Dakota -- and all states -- soon might see significant changes in non-resident hunting restrictions. Is this good? Certainly non-resident elk hunters in Arizona believe they benefited when that state last year was forced, essentially, by a court to issue about 800 more tags to out-of-state hunters.

Yet despite Hatch's insistence that regulations affecting hunters can somehow be apart from those affecting wildlife, the issue today that most affects both is access to good hunting land and the opportunity to enjoy it without being overrun by other hunters.

North Dakota does have a hunter problem, and it's been brought on by an ever-rising number of non-resident waterfowlers.

Most of those hunters, as noted above, are from Minnesota --and most travel to North Dakota because a) the duck hunting is no good here, and b) on occasions when you find a few ducks in Minnesota, you find a host of hunters chasing them.

Perhaps, in fact, there is nothing about game management that does not center on hunter management.

In Europe, these issues have long since been settled, as, historically, only the gentry have access to shooting. So, too, in other states, Texas being one, where only people who can afford to buy or lease hunting land can shoot.

North Dakota, in establishing what Hatch claims are unconstitutional hunting restrictions, has tried to do something similar: retain the state's good hunting, first for its residents and secondarily for a limited (though still large) number of non-residents.

No hunter I know would forgo that system in favor of one granting unlimited access to everyone -- and with it a loss of quality hunting.

It's possible Hatch will win his lawsuit, and perhaps a new, improved system of managing resident and non-resident hunters and anglers will emerge in North Dakota and elsewhere.

It's also possible Hatch might win -- and everyone else loses.

Dennis Anderson is at [email protected]

That is about as well as this can be said!!!! My hat is off to Mr. Anderson for telling it like it is.

Bob


----------



## mallardwacker (Dec 6, 2004)

I personally am embarrassed by what Hatch is trying to do. :******: If he wins this rediculous lawsuit I fear the people in North Dakota will hold a personal grudge toward guys like me coming from Minnesota to hunt. Sometime personal relations with fellow sportsmen can be just as devastating as politics.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

*Joining Hatch in the lawsuit is U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, who in an affidavit claims that, "Because of my busy schedule, it is virtually impossible for me to choose a zone and a date in advance [to hunt in North Dakota]." *

You have got to be shytting me. Obviously 'Lower Colin' Peterson doesn't even have any idea of what he's talking about. You'd think his PR guy would stop him from being such a dipshyt and let him know that he doesn't have to pick a date or a zone in advance. If this is his reasoning for backing the lawsuit someone should let him know that he can show up and buy a license to hunt anywhere in the state on that same day. Once he realizes he has nothing to b#tch about do you think he'll drop the lawsuit? Somehow I seriously doubt it since all this is, is politics; plain and simple. I'm sure Peterson saw this as a perfect way to distract his constituents from the fact that he single-handedly killed the second phase of CREP and stopped 120,000 acres of marginal farmland from being permanently set aside.

Yet another reason why politicians, particulary one's like 'Lower Colin' who don't hunt, should stay out of hunting related issues.

Puke. uke:


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

First, I don't think the average North Dakotan will hold it against the average Minnesotan if Hatch prevails. North Dakota could appeal to a higher court but that would remain to be seen.

So Colin Peterson is so busy he can't plan. Gee, thats too bad. Then he should not try to come here to hunt. What a lame excuse. But, I expect this from Mr. Peterson. He is no friend of conservation. A few years ago I heard him speak to about 250 people at a conference in Winnipeg. Most of the people at this conference were professionals involved in water conservation, watershed management, stream and lake ecology, etc. For 15 minutes Mr. Peterson extolled the virtues of increasing drainage in the Red River watershed in Minnesota to more quickly get rid of "excess" water on ag lands. It was embarrassing to listen to him. Talk about not knowing your audience. I don't think he has a PR guy or staffers that pay attention.

It is truly unfortunate that this lawsuit has gotten as far as it has. If the average Minnesotan is really concerened about Mr. Hatch's stance and the impact on relationships they can always speak loudly at the voting booth.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Aythya said:


> So Colin Peterson is so busy he can't plan. Gee, thats too bad. Then he should not try to come here to hunt. What a lame excuse.


It's not even a valid excuse. He can literally buy a license online the night before in Detroit Lakes and then hunt anywhere in the state the very next day (or very same day for that matter). He doesn't have to plan ahead, so why is he *****ing?

If you're going to sue someone, you better damn well make sure your accusations are not false. Apparently this lesson has been lost on 'Colin.'


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

mallardwacker said:


> I personally am embarrassed by what Hatch is trying to do. :ticked: If he wins this rediculous lawsuit I fear the people in North Dakota will hold a personal grudge toward guys like me coming from Minnesota to hunt. Sometime personal relations with fellow sportsmen can be just as devastating as politics.


My sentiments exactly mallard.... Hatch's lawsuit does nothing but stir the pot and has the potential to close the door, even more, to accessable hunting land. MN hunters who are against this need to email or call him to let him know how they feel about this. I've emailed him a couple of times and he has not deemed it necessary to respond to my concerns. He is hell bent on grandstanding this case to further his own career and pave the way for his run at the Governor's office, in my humble opinion. :******:


----------

