Minn. Sues North Dakota

[Nemont]

Here is an important issue for all who want to hunt out of state. It doesn't have anything to do with Dubya or Kerry. Who is right? Should residents get preference? I think this issue will become even more of a problem in the future.

Last update: March 10, 2004 at 5:27 AM
Minnesota cries foul over hunting laws
Kevin Duchschere, Star Tribune

March 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.

LINK


Nemont

 

[smalls]

Thanks Nemont for sharing this. I mentioned it shortly on another post.

I could make a completely rational post about why this is VERY bad for states, but I would rather just say MINNESOTA SUCKS DONKEY BALLS!!!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Doesn't South Dakota do the same thing?

 

[smalls]

Yes, which is part of my rational argument. ND restricts non-res waterfowl hunters to 30,000, SD caps at 4,000.

I know that SD delays the opening of the non-res season on upland a week and I believe it does also on waterfowl.

We are not minnesota's playground.

 

[Washington Hunter]

It sounds like Minnesota is using the same argument United States Outfitters (USO) used in their lawsuit against Arizona regarding the limitations put on the number of big game tags issued to non-residents.

unconstitutional infringement of interstate commerce