MN Lawsuit

[walleyewacker]

I am not sure who proposed it but someone proposed charging a non-resident the same fee that it would cost a minnesotan to hunt in their state, no matter where they come from or what they are doin. I think I agree with this as much as anything. I dont think it is right to single out ND as much as they are doing. The situtaion is not much different with Iowa for deer and SD for everything.

[TV BOY]

It was in the St. Cloud Times today ( They need a day or two to find a story up here)

I have gone out to ND for the past 3 years and the residents that I have spoke to think the politicians are messing everything up. They realize the economic impact of non-res hunters in the small towns. More rules and restrictions always cause more problems then they attempt to slove.

Part of the problem is the slob hunters who don't ask permission to hunt even though legally you don't have to unless posted. This irritates the farmers. The farmers would rather you ask, and most all of them would gladly say yes.

I just hope this issue just goes away verses getting more #&^%ed up.

[Ptman]

I agree as far as the waterfowl goes. I don't have a problem with the increased license fee, but I don't think that the state should have the right to tell someone that they can't hunt on federal property or property that they own. Waterfowl are a federally managed resource and the state shouldn't limit who can hunt. As far as the pheasants go, that is a different story and the state has the right to manage that resource as they see fit.

[TV BOY]

I believe it was only the state land and the P.L.O.T.S land that was restricted to Non-res for some of the season not the Fed WPA's or private land. Unfortunately this applied during their Pheasant opener which coincided with MN MEA weekend which is one of the times we go. Fortunately, we hunt private land.

[Evenflow]

I can't believe no one has posted about this yet.

Minnesota cries foul over hunting laws
Kevin Duchschere
Star Tribune
Published 03/10/2004

In an unusual interstate gun duel -- hunting guns, that is -- Minnesota is going to court today to overturn North Dakota's restrictions on nonresident hunters.

In the past two years, North Dakota has barred duck and pheasant hunting by nonresidents in the first week of the season and has limited the times and places where nonresidents may hunt. That's an unconstitutional infringement of interstate commerce, Attorney General Mike Hatch said Tuesday.

"This is just discrimination. It looks to me like a number of people in North Dakota just want to keep the birds to themselves," he said.

But Minnesota also regulates hunting and fishing in its borders, North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven said in a statement. "It does not make any sense to sue North Dakota for doing what Minnesota itself does," he said.

The suit, to be filed today in federal court in Bismarck, says that the state's restrictions affect interstate commerce by limiting the number of Minnesotans who go to North Dakota each year to hunt ducks and geese. The suit also says the rules threaten the portion of North Dakota's economy that relies on money spent by hunters, according to Minnesota's complaint.

U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., whose Seventh District borders North Dakota and who urged Hatch to take the matter to court, said that federal money helps maintain waterfowl habitats in North Dakota, arguably the most important duck state.

"If this starts happening all over the country, it's going to be bad not only for managing wildlife conservation in the country, it's going to be bad for business," Peterson said.

The suit says as many as 15,000 Minnesotans hunt waterfowl in North Dakota each year, about half the total number of nonresident hunters. A recent North Dakota State University study showed that nonresidents spent nearly $21 million on duck hunting in 2001-02, about $7.5 million less than residents. The overall economic impact on the state of nonresident hunters, the study found, was estimated at $78.5 million.

It has long been customary for states to charge nonresidents more for hunting than residents. But the North Dakota Legislative Assembly took that a step further in 2002 when it gave resident hunters a week to stake out the fields and potholes free of competition from nonresidents. The restrictions were prompted by complaints from local hunters that nonresidents were crowding them out of the best spots.

Minnesota doesn't allow out-of-staters to trap or hunt moose, elk and prairie chickens. South Dakota limits nonresident pheasant and duck hunters and gives residents a head start to hunt pheasants on public land.

Hoeven noted the apparent discrepancy. "It's just not consistent," he said. But Hatch called North Dakota's actions blatant.

"We'll sue South Dakota another day," he said, smiling.

A federal appeals court, citing the commerce clause, last year struck down an Arizona law that limited the number of permits nonresidents could get for hunting bull elk and deer.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has discussed the issue several times with Hoeven, said in a statement that he supported the suit. He noted that retaliatory bills have been introduced restricting Minnesota fishing to North Dakotans. "It's not healthy or productive for either of our states," Pawlenty said.

[Evenflow]

The state of MN and Mr Hatch get an A+ for starting this lawsuit.
I 100% agree that this is the correct way to handle this situation. I know a lot of restrictions on ND residents have been proposed, and as much I want fewer people fishing next to me on the lakes, two wrongs just don't make a right. Let the courts decide.

Evenflow

------------------
It's all just theory till you hit the water.

[LABS4ME]

My personal opinion... won't be back till they fix it! I go out of state in pursuit of all kinds of game, my feeling is: I'm O.K. with paying high license fees being a non-resident, BUT I should at that point get the same privledges as a resident, after all you are technically "buying" up to resident status when purchasing your license. Do I agree with retalitory license increses in this state? Not retalitory, BUT our non-res. license fees ARE way to low and need to be raised, especially fishing, plus the family benefit needs to be removed for non-residents. The people from Fargo and Grand forks want their cake and eat it too.... there personal hunting nervana in No.Dak. and their cabin in Minnesota. Wi is raising their non-res. deer tag this year and I was told I'll be paying $150.00. Colorado's elk and deer tags cost me something like $700.00 combined now... Iowa tukey and deer have gone up, etc. etc. If you want to go to these states you pay the fee but at that point you hope to be on "level status" with the residents after purchasing your permit. No. Dak. policy makers and urban residents have pubically rammed it down the non-res. throats that they are not welcome. I don't feel this applies to those in rural areas as they are some of the nicest people you'll meet, but like I said till the air clears in that state, I'll take my money elsewhere.

My 2 cents...

Labs

[snowgoose]

Labs
I agree with you. I stopped going to NoDak 3 years ago. When they want you to buy one licence to shoot Pheasants and a different one to shoot ducks. I drew the line.
I love hunting in NoDak but it was getting worse every year. Guides are leasing most of the good private hunting land.
If you want to make a statment to North Dakota, Stop hunting there.
I drive the extra time to go to Canada. Farmers are more than willing to let you hunt up there.

------------------
Hunt Snow Geese, Save the tundra

[oilguy]

Labs, you've got a good perspective on the people from Eastern ND having their cake and eating it too. I believe the current restrictions on Non-res hunters were proposed by a group from the East half of the state. To keep this in perspective, I personally observed more than 1500 vehicles per hour, with ND plates, traveling east-bound on US 10 on a Friday afternoon last summer. In the past, we used to go to ND "naked", bought everything down to the dogfood when we got there. Last year, we still went out, but tried to not spend even a dime after we arrived.

[KJSnider]

I am now a ND transplant living in central MN. My parents have a farm in the Goodrich area, which is right in central ND.

The little town of Goodrich has almost died in the last 10 years or so. There were and are many empty houses, and farms that are sitting vacant. But in the last few years, hunters(most from MN), have bought these houses, fixed them up, and now are paying taxes on them to use for a few weeks during the hunting season.

When you get into the areas of waterfowl heaven, the "locals" know that the "out-of-staters" bring in a lot of money that would not other-wise be there. Most are happy they are there "if they are considerate and use common sense". Heck, some even rent out bedrooms. My parents and some neighbors have a great relationship with a family from the SE part of the US.

I believe LABS hit in on the head with "No. Dak. policy makers and urban residents" screwed things up. But I would add the residents in the eastern 1/3 of the state. When I am at "home", I get the worst stares of "invading their space" from people from the eastern part of the state when I'm driving my truck with MN plates, which I think is kinda funny, being I was the one who talked to them a few days earlier and let them jump some ducks in some land that my family and I own next to the farm.

Just my $.02
KJ

P.S. If any one hunts that area, let me know. I think it would be kinda fun hunting fowl with a fellow FM'er back home.

[This message has been edited by KJSnider (edited 03-11-2004).]

[Neighboor]

I agree with what KJ said. But I think this Lawsuit by Mike Hatch and Co. is not the way to go about things. Ramming a lawsuit down ND throat will do nobody any good. It is my understanding that the ND Law making body only meets every 2 years. So it takes time to get things changed. MN (Pawlenty et all) should use a more diplomatic approach and talk and reach rural ND communities and help them have more and urge more of a voice in ND law making. This is too much of a knee jerk reaction in my opinion. I think the suit should be withdrawn and lets really think about this for awhile. If this lawsuit finds ND in violation of Interstate commerce laws it will only [PoorWordUsage] ND off and cause them to raise ND hunting fees. Which they still will be able to do

Maybe something can be worked out that if You own land in ND and/or pay Property tax you have resident type hunting rights. Seems only fair to me.

If you really want to blame someone for staring all of this you should look to George Taulman of United States Outfitters (USO) who started this whole mess when he brought this same type of lawsuit against the State of Arizona for NR opportunities to draw big game tags in Az. Of course he is doing this out of greed. More NR get tags the more money his outfitter business gets.

jus my 2cents

[Guest]

KJ,
Where do you live now?

[Guest]

My whole take on this is that Non-res licenses are way too cheap. $35 for the ENTIRE season?!?!? When they charge us like they do for only a few days?!?!?!

Ridiculous!

Yes, they do spend money here, but there's got to be a time when this state draws the line and says enough is enough! Treat our citizens like we treat you and then we'll talk, is what our state government should be saying.

I feel really bad about the small communities that are getting hurt, but they need to pressure THEIR legislators too.

And to think at one time the Minnesota Territory went all the way to the Missouri....how sweet THAT would have been!!

[This message has been edited by Tom Herman (edited 03-12-2004).]

[KJSnider]

Tom, I now live in Albany.

I too think that the lawsuit is a knee-jerk reaction. This whole thing has gotten ugly because of plain politics. Many of the restrictions in ND are there because of the bigger cities, mostly in the east, carry many more votes and squeky wheels than where the majority of the wildlife is at.

I remember reading in one of the local papers, that when they where holding "town meetings" in the central part of the state to talk to the locals about what they wanted, most where against the new proposed restrictions.

Guess that makes $.04
KJ

[Riverratpete]

Have never hunted in ND and may never but I am somewhat of a fishing fanatic (ask the wife) and I resent the fact that all them there foreigners from ND are coming to MY state and taking MY walleyes and encroaching on MY lakes for a small non resident fee...how dare they! The problem with ND is they have some of them people and their ruining it for everyone else. I say we increase the non resident fees for everything. When a bully pushes you.. you push back, just my 2 cents

[ChuckN]

ND is trying to take control of a federal migratory bird. What they get away with is sickening to my stomach. I had an option to live in ND or MN when I lived on the border for years. You won't catch me dead claiming I am a ND resident, no way.

I once observed a sign on ND farmer's private property that stated:
"This land is open to all except EASTERN ND residents"

It's the politics of eastern ND that pushed for all these restrictions and many of the small towns that depended on hunters for their #1 income got shafted. I've been around ND (not hunting) and many of the small towns welcomed non-residents.

And you should see the traffic of ND vehicles heading east in the summer....blows away the amount of duck hunters entering ND in the fall by a long shot. Let ND sink themselves.

[JGJ]

You want to get your blood pressure elevated go to the NoDakoutdoors site. Then you will see what a vocal few Eastern ND boys think about NR's. What I find humerous though is that most of them talk about all the land owners they know that are going to post everything next year so the NR's can find no where to hunt. I say,
"yeah right" I think I will put some orange on and drive around ther next fall with my MN plates, just to see the looks I get.

[myzee13]

Riverrat,
Them there people? As far as I know, the only water you "own" is the stuff you pee out every so often! NR's should have just as much right to fish and hunt as lonng as they buy licenses and follow regs. I agree, the fishing license for NR's should be raised.....it's way too cheap now compared to other states.

[myzee13]

KJ,
If you want a fllow FMer to hunt ducks with, I'd be willing! I "hunted" ND a few years back with limited success. We were pretty blind on where to hunt, so the last 2 years we've been going to SD, where I have a few contacts, but I was only able to get a 3-day season.

[2dalake]

As an east Nodak I can tell you that unless you know someone out west ND residents that live east of Jamestown can count on being treated worse than NRs when it come to finding a place to hunt.

There's a huge political rift in this state divided east/west. I moved here from Minnesota thirteen years ago and I think the rivalry is silly. I just hope they settle this mess soon.

[Riverratpete]

Myzee13, thats my point exactly...the ND res think they "own" the federal/public land and the migratory waterfowl that are passing through their state to other locals. Personally they could raise the license cost to a million dollars for all I care, but they (NR) best not come crying to Minnesota wanting a better deal. I've been a life long resident of this state and am getting sick and tired of being considered a "sucker" state by every slick talking politician and do gooder ie, welfare, etc. I say we play the same way that we as a state have been getting played for the past 20 years, sorry, had to vent.

[TV BOY]

A lot of the ducks we hunt in ND are in fact locals. They have small puddles of water all over the place and they are full of birds. If they farmed like Minnesotians, they wouldn't have as many birds! Here, just about every field has drain tile so one can till every possible inch of land per acre.

[This message has been edited by TV BOY (edited 03-15-2004).]

[hanson]

Interesting reading guys! Keep it coming.

I'm happy something is being done, the lawsuit might not be the best thing but its something. Haven't Governors Pawlenty & Hoeven met a few times in the past to try and work this out and nothing has happened?

Its also interesting about who's point of view your getting your info from. Outdoor News, the Tribune, and the metro TV stations are presenting it one way. When I was up at my parents place this weekend in Crookston, what was printed in the Grand Forks Herald and the GF TV stations was totally different. They interviewed a ND resident who basically told Hatch to shove his lawsuit up his a**. I was surpised to see the interview on TV. They also interviewed some residents from central ND and they were saying the whole reason behind the restrictions is a bunch of Fargo residents. Seems like they'd rather welcome Minnesotans to their land to hunt than Fargo folks.

Some day I'll get out to Dakota to hunt, but I've always had real good hunting east of Crookston so it doesn't make since to me.

[myzee13]

Sorry, Riverrat. I guess I missunderstood your 1st post. This issue is a lot more heated than I thought! It's too bad for us because it used to be good hunting in MN before everyone drained every little puddle. Some ND residents realize what they have and want to keep it for themselves.... I guess I can't blame 'em! Instead of complaining about them, WE should be trying to improve our State. Here's an idea, raise NR license fees in MN, and use those increases to better the habitat we have here! the reason they have such a good thing is because they didn't F^%$# it up in the first place.

[Riverratpete]

Myzee, I couldn't agree with you more about trying to fix our problem here in our state, now if we could just figure out a way to get the farmers/developers to quit draining every little piece of water and drain tileing the state we might get some better hunting around here and then no one would want to go to ND/SD and they'd be Bitc*&*^ about lack of tourism. oh well I quess we can't win them all.