# MN lawsuit moves forward



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Minn. hunting lawsuit moves forward

By RICHARD HINTON, Bismarck Tribune

A federal judge has denied North Dakota's motion to dismiss a Minnesota lawsuit that challenges the state's nonresident hunting regulations.

North Dakota's motion claimed that the plaintiffs lacked standing under interstate commerce laws to pursue the suit and that its sovereign immunity prohibited the suit.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel L. Hovland's ruling, which was issued late Tuesday afternoon, said Minnesota and three individual plaintiffs do have standing to press their lawsuit, which alleges that North Dakota's nonresident regulations violate interstate commerce laws.

Hovland also added what may be a caveat.

"None of the court's findings should be taken as an expression on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims," Hovland wrote in his ruling. "A plaintiff may have standing to pursue a claim that is doomed on its merits."

Hovland went on to say: "In such a case, the courts are obligated to let the claim proceed even though its death may be imminent."

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said in a telephone interview Wednesday he would prefer those two sentences not be part of Hovland's ruling.

"Hopefully, he's not foreshadowing anything there," Hatch said.

He added that he wasn't surprised by the ruling.

"We prevailed on the motion. It's normally not one the defendant prevails on," he said.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wouldn't want to trade places with Hatch at this point.

"After reading this decision, although we didn't prevail -- and I didn't think we would -- I'm more optimistic than I was before." he said Wednesday.

Stenehjem pointed to other sentences in Hovland's decision. "These cases may be the death knell for Minnesota's claim in this litigation," Hovland wrote in one section.

In another section, Hovland wrote, "Although the defendant's assertions may well prevail at the summary judgment state of the litigation, the court finds the discussion premature."

Stenehjem called such comments hints "that might cause the state of Minnesota to be rather pessimistic about their claim."

The next step likely will be motions for summary judgments. Hatch called the case "ripe" for such motions, adding that he expects fall hunting seasons will be going full bore before there's another ruling in the case.

Hatch said he remains comfortable with the lawsuit.

"It makes sense; it's appropriate," he said. "States are hell-bent on satiating the interests of parochial establishments. All states are in the game, and it has to come to an end. That's what this case is all about."

Hatch said claims that many Minnesota hunters consider North Dakota their personal hunting grounds was a "legitimate complaint."

But the lawsuit is not about that, he added. "Say a couple invests their nest egg to cater to hunters," he said. "They ought to have the ability to cater their services to Minnesotans and South Dakotans.

"In the same vein, guides and resorts in Minnesota ought to be able to continue their economic livelihoods and they should not be jeopardized by parochial interests."

Brought on behalf of its residents, Minnesota's lawsuit challenges North Dakota's ban on nonresidents hunting during the first week of waterfowl season, requiring nonresidents to hunt waterfowl in zones, requiring nonresidents to obtain waterfowl and small game licenses to hunt on land they own or lease, prohibiting nonresidents from hunting on state Game and Fish controlled land during the first week of pheasant season and imposing higher nonresident waterfowl license fees.

Hatch said economic issues are at the heart of the lawsuit. "People think it's about hunters' convenience," he said. He explained that once he explains the economic issues of hunting most people understand the reason for the lawsuit.

Hatch said the lawsuit was filed on the same day that the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill in committee to prevent nonresidents from fishing in Minnesota for the first two weeks of the season.

Such a law would bar intrastate commerce for the convenience of Minnesotans who fish as opposed to Minnesotans whose livelihoods depend on fishing, he said.

Hatch added that much of rural North Dakota -- where communities count on hunting season's economic boon -- supports the lawsuit.

He said he also has gotten "hostile opposition" from Fargo hunters "who want to keep the watering hole to themselves."

Reviews also are mixed in Minnesota, where some accuse him of striving to help metropolitan hunters.

"I've gotten support from guides and resort owners, strong support from those people in both states."

The three individual plaintiffs are Collin Peterson, Starkey Grove and Charles Orvik. Peterson, a U.S. Congressman, regularly hunts in North Dakota. Grove and Orvik are native North Dakotans who say the state's regulations limit the time they can hunt with family and friends in North Dakota.

Minnesota sued in March and added three individuals to the lawsuit in April. North Dakota filed its motion to dismiss in May.

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


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Dakota Kid said:


> "None of the court's findings should be taken as an expression on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims," Hovland wrote in his ruling. "A plaintiff may have standing to pursue a claim that is doomed on its merits."
> 
> Hovland went on to say: "In such a case, the courts are obligated to let the claim proceed even though its death may be imminent."


 :rollin: :sniper:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Hostile opposition from Fargo hunters that want to keep the watering hole to themselves?

post after post after post and still no one listens, they hear what they want to hear and spin the rest!

Have a good one!


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

> Hatch added that much of rural North Dakota -- where communities count on hunting season's economic boon -- supports the lawsuit.


 :bs:

The only reason anyone in ND would back the lawsuit is because they're misinformed. AGAIN, THIS IS *NOT* a duck hunting lawsuit, it's EVERY resource in ND. Deer hunting opener is a holiday here, and it means everything to rural ND. When gratis tags are no more, and the chance at a buck tag decreases significantly...those who have their head in the sand will realize that they've been fooled.

I can use any example, I just like to choose deer as a resource since it's the most persued.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

> I can use any example, I just like to choose deer as a resource since it's the most persued.


Yep, the most persued by residents. Good deer hunting land is hard to find.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

Well I guess Mr. Hatch forgot to ask this Motel owner if he supports the lawsuit. NO !!!Also I have talked with many Non-res, who DO NOT support the suit what so ever.Do these new regs hurt my business?...Hell yes.but then you have to pull yourself up with your boot straps and diversify...try harder to make money just like any person would do...dont sit back and cry a damned river. Non res can still hunt and we welcome them,but they are limited...is the system we developed perfect...I think not, but lets hope it can be worked out to satisfy us all. Lets all put our bad feelings aside and welcome all hunters we meet in the field res or non-res.Have fun ...Thats what its all about....
Sorry Chris not trying to put a plug in my business!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Curty

Really good to hear that from you. The outfitters, guides, and tourism people would have us believe that every motel owner is for unlimited hunters in the state. As so many have said before this the limitations are to take pressure off the resource not to punish nonresidents. Most nonresidents I have met are very nice people. I want the wildlife to have time to rest, time to eat, and for residents and nonresidents alike to have a quality experience. Again Curty than you very much for your comments. I helps me put things in better perspective.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

Thank you Plainsman...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I for one can't wait to see what is decided. I hope they hurry up and finish it before election time it will help people make decisions.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

I for one, think the suit should continue also! Why? Because I've seen A LOT more solidarity between residents and non-residents on the issue. It seems to have brought the "hunters" together. I hope they don't win, and don't think they will, but it's nice to see some of the conversations where we refer to each other as hunters instead of, res/non-res. When I'm out in the field I run across numerous other people and NOT ONCE have I checked to see what kind of license plate they have on their truck, etc. to me it's just another hunter. Let the politicians play their silly games. If the hunting community sticks together tightly on this, I believe the money boys will just fade away and find someone, and somewhere else, to use their bucks to get their personal agendas and egos satisfied. In the mean time I'm going to hunt, IN MINNESOTA, with no desire to travel to another state. And if I ever do, I KNOW, I'm just a guest or visitor and appreciate wholeheartedly the opportunities that may be afforded to me there. I EXPECT, to pay more if I travel, for licenses etc. and will accept greater restrictions with a smile because "I don't live there, I'm a visitor!!!" I don't have any money invested in the State owned hunting lands there, other than a portion of my license fees, etc. yet they allow me to use their land with no questions asked and only MINOR restrictions. Who could ask for a better deal? Let the suit go on to it's final doom. It makes it a whole lot easier come election time when we know certain individuals positions. Have a GREAT season and be careful everyone


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Be careful what you wish for... the lawsuit will destroy every state's ability to manage wildlife. It has to be micromanaged as each state is unique.

I could care less what the specifics are outside of that, and this lawsuit is so much more than R/NR...it's about greed/politics.


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

I talked to a minnesota resident today that guaranteed a win over ND in the lawsuit. He said that it should have happened years ago, and is excited about the possabilities that it could present. He referred back to the costitution (i think) and he said that it states that game is the property of the citizens. Meaning not residents or non-residents but everyone. So i said that means that anyone can go to any state, hunt any game without different restrictions regardless of where you are from? Yes, absolutely.

What do you boys think of that and does Minnesota have a victory coming?

All i can say is stick together and fight with both hands clinched!!!


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

anyone ever watch gladiator?


----------



## GooseBuster4 (Sep 4, 2004)

If this passes it will change ND forever and no one will get the good end of the deal. Non residents won't be able to get on any land that isn't leased by a guide and that is a fact. NR think that they are going to get the good end of this deal, but they are very very wrong, it will ruin any chance you have of hunting on any private owned land and you will be paying for every bird that you shoot and that is the bottom line.

THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR NO ONE BESIDES THE OUTFITTERS..........


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

This NR does not support lawsuit!


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

First let me say that I am not in favor of the lawsuit as it WILL only create hard feelings toward all NR's. Secondly how many Nr's can really afford the time and the money to take off more than 14 days in one month to hunt in ND? I know that as a buisness owner that I personally can not afford to take off that much time, my buisness would suffer tremendously!! I can look at my books for the month of Oct. and see that it is the smallest revenue month that I have, and I know why, it is because I spend ten to fourteen days in ND every year during that month. However I am not complaining, I also need the rest and relaxation that comes from that time spent in ND, to me it is the most cherished time off I get. My point is that if anyone really thought about it, that fourteen days is plenty of time to do all the out state hunting you can do. There may be some way to be able to manage those fourteen days differently than two seven day blocks or one seven day shot, but that is beside the point, my only beef with ND DNR is that they should have a matching small game lisc. as it is the pits that I can not hunt small game the for the same days as I am hunting waterfowl. However I can even learn to suck this up if need be, what ever it takes to not lose the priviledge of hunting in ND!! Every out of state hunter no matter where they hunt and no matter where they are from should always remember that it is a PRIVILEDGE to hunt in another state not a RIGHT!!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

cbass, I'd ignore the guys like the one you talked to....they only want to see the issue one way and you'll never change them. And, JD, exactly! How many NRs hunt here more than one or two weekends?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Cbass,

He's right. Since he's a citizen, he gets to vote here, right? Pay income taxes here, right?

I don't think its an issue of who will prevail, its how much ND will bill MN for the legal fees related to this frivlous lawsuit. Is ND allowed to seek compensatory damages from the plaintifs personally?

M.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

jd...what do you mean you can't hunt small game at the same time as waterfowl???????

You can buy a waterfowl license and a small game license at the same time for the same days.

Or are you talking about the 10 day vs. 14 day difference?

Yhose are set by the legislature not the GNF


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Ken w the small game lisc days should match the waterfowl days yes the 10 vs 14days we lose four days of small game hunting for the same money as the waterfowl it's the pits. Level them out and make them the same!! But like I said earlier I can learn to suck it up if means not losing the priviledge of hunting in ND. Also did you get my e-mail I sent you? Yes I do know that the lisc can be overlaped for the same time period just that you have to jugle them and then remember which days you can hunt both and which days that you can only waterfowl. It would be much easier if they were both just 14 days thats all.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No I didn't....send me a PM.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

MRN,

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was thinking the same thing. I do believe that they are liable for fees and costs related to the case. that is the price you pay for putting your name on the dotted line. How much is this lawsuit costing the tax payer in ND? And by all means should be recoverable through legal means with the addition of court costs for such legal action. I think those 3 dip sticks are going to regret their decision to put their names on this lawsuit. "I am coming to your house tonight and I want steak, baked potato, corn on the cob and apple pie with 2 scoops of vanilla ice cream. And you better not over cook the corn or I will sue your a$$." Hows that for guest ettiquet? :down:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

GooseBuster4 said:


> If this passes it will change ND forever and no one will get the good end of the deal. Non residents won't be able to get on any land that isn't leased by a guide and that is a fact. NR think that they are going to get the good end of this deal, but they are very very wrong, it will ruin any chance you have of hunting on any private owned land and you will be paying for every bird that you shoot and that is the bottom line.
> 
> THIS WILL BE GOOD FOR NO ONE BESIDES THE OUTFITTERS..........


Any NR with an ounce of common sense will read this and understand.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

AMEN Fellas !


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

my state just doesn't understand. :eyeroll:


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2004)

God, stick to your ugly state and this will be fine. Deall with the pressure, see how you like it, and then cause more pressure to the residents of this great state, sure it'll make them more happy!!! Until you've lived there, you'll never know I guess... MN's law suit is just a bunch of Bull****, and I wish they'd burn in hell for the trouble and waste of time they've caused NoDak!!! :thumb:


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

#1 - I wish they'd burn in hell for the trouble and waste of time they've caused NoDak!!! :thumb:[/quote]

Way, way over the line there #1


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

After reading the High Courts statement I couldn't resist a response:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it say.....

Well, Minnesota might have a lawsuit but they probably don't however we will let them proceed so lot's of otherwise useful money can be spent on a useless lawsuit.

As much as I disagree with alot of the things ND has done in regards to restricting NR's I wish ND nothing but the best of luck in beating this thing!

My personal prediction? I'm an adminent Packer fan and God knows us cheeseheads love our team but this lawsuit has about as much of a chance of winning as the Packers have of winning the Superbowl.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Ahh bless the Anti Minnesota state of Wisconsin go cheese heads/Badgers.

TC


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Ya, I love the cheesehead shoutout! GO Pack GO :beer:


----------

