This year, Gov. Mike Rounds will host the annual governor's pheasant hunt on Oct. 26-27.

The date of the economic development event may be public information, but its invitation list is not, according to a recent ruling by the S.D. Supreme Court.

The governor's hunt made the news this month, thanks to a decision in a lawsuit brought by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader to force the Office of Tourism and State Development to make the 2005 invitation list public.

A panel of five circuit court judges (all the sitting Supreme Court justices took themselves off the case) sided with the state. State law does not require the agency to keep the invitation list as an official document, the court said, so there is no duty to make it public.

As a newspaper that would like to see stronger open government laws in this state, we were disappointed with that decision, of course. The court told the plaintiff to seek the remedy it wants through the legislative process, not the courts. While that process is ongoing through the Open Government Task Force, we agree with the Argus Leader, which called the court's decision a "sad day for public access" in South Dakota.

The names of the public officials, politicians, judges and business people who may be in attendance at this year's hunt would no doubt be of interest in a state where pheasant hunting is big business and economic development decisions are big news - as this week's referendum on Cabela's in Rapid City proves.

Chances are pretty good that officials at the Nebraska-based sporting goods outfitter, which was enticed to put a store in Rapid City with a multi-million dollar incentive package, have been invited to more than a few governor's hunts in the past.

Chances are equally good that none of this state's newspapers or other media will be on the invitation list this year.

But the larger point is that the public simply does not have the right to know.

Whatever else it is, the governor's hunt is a state-sponsored event where politics and business meet. At that intersection, the public's interest is always better served by openness than by secrecy.

Or even the appearance of secrecy.