A federal judge has thrown out a Minnesota lawsuit challenging some of North Dakota's nonresident hunting laws.

In a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland said that North Dakota laws treating nonresident hunters differently than resident hunters do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Minnesota contended the regulations violated the Constitution's commerce clause.

"The court's finding that recreational hunting is not commerce, the court's finding that recreational hunting does not substantially impact interstate commerce, and the well-established interest of a state's ability to regulate wildlife within its border, sound the death knell for Minnesota's claims," Hovland wrote in the 19-page order.

Filed in March 2004, the lawsuit objected to North Dakota's barring of nonresident duck hunters during the season's first week, the state's new zones and time limits for nonresident waterfowl hunters, the ban on nonresidents hunting land controlled by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department during the first week of the pheasant season, increases in nonresident license fees and requiring nonresidents to obtain small-game and waterfowl licenses to hunt on land they own or lease.

Many of the regulations that Minnesota challenged were enacted by the 2003 Legislature.

"Judge Hovland's decision reaffirms what we've said all along - states do in fact have the right to manage their wildlife in a manner that benefits both the resource and sportsman," Gov. John Hoeven said in a statement. "We've worked very hard over the past three years to build access, and this ruling supports the concept that the best stewards of the land are the people who live, work and play on it."

"We are very happy," said North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. "This was an ill-fated lawsuit from the beginning. Getting the ruling out merely underlines what we have been saying all along."

"We are pleased with the outcome and not surprised at all," said Paul Schadewald, NDGFD chief of administrative services, on behalf of Director Dean Hildebrand, who was out of the office Wednesday.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch has not decided whether to appeal the ruling, he said in a statement Wednesday.

Stenehjem said he "really hopes Minnesota won't appeal" the ruling.

"This, coupled with Congress saying it doesn't intend to regulate state game and fish regulations, is a double blow," he explained. "Further action on their part is a waste of time and money."

Stenehjem declined to speculate on North Dakota's costs to defend the lawsuit, but he praised the assistant attorneys general who worked on the case, Paul Germolus and Dean Haas.

Hovland's decision did not rely on that new federal law, approved by Congress last month, that said states may favor resident hunters and anglers in state game and fish regulations.

Hovland also chided North Dakota for passing the new laws, writing "… Hopefully, the Legislative Assembly of North Dakota will carefully reconsider the decisions made in 2003 concerning the new hunting regulations and the ramifications to North Dakota in terms of the impact on tourism and economic development.

" … North Dakota residents should not be surprised to see their access to recreational hunting and fishing opportunities diminish in other states, particularly Minnesota. Hopefully, a more sane, objective and reasonable approach will be undertaken by government officials from both states to end the litany of bickering."

Hatch took note of those comments, saying, "We are hopeful that North Dakota's elected officials will heed the judge's advice to stop the border war aimed at Minnesota hunters and adopt more reasonable and objective standards. We also hope that the state of Minnesota will not escalate this matter by enacting measures which have been proposed in the past to restrict fishing licenses for nonresidents."

(Reach reporter Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or outdoors@bismarcktribune.net.)