My first reaction is duh! The 2A is not about protecting hunting at all. Is the opinion published anywhere? I'd be more interested in what the judge determined 'was' protected by the 2A rather than what 'was not' (with respect to hunting).
The decision would be useful to us if the judge went into great detail what activities were protected i.e. preservation of the citizen's militia (U.S. v. Miler) or self-defense (Heller v. D.C.).