Terrain Navigator
CD ROM topographic map coverage for ALL of Alaska

Click for more information

Complete Catalogs

Alaska Hunting Books
Alaska Fishing Books
Alaska Travel Books

Plan Your
Alaska Trip
with The Milepost

Click here for more information or to
order your copy

[ Return to Contents | Post a Reply | Post a new message ]

Okay now here's the rub for those of you who think they aren't charging for the animal; If I'm in the woods with a weapon, it can be argued that I am hunting (although it can equally be argued that I'm just hiking with a rifle.) Do I need a tag or hunting license to be in the woods with a weapon? No. Even if it's bear season and I'm in camo looking at bears? No. When do I need that tag and license? It's a grey area depending on the nebulous definition of "take" but it becomes black and white when I shoot at or kill an animal. I had better have a tag and license for that animal at that time. So they can attempt to charge me for having a tag in my possesion giving the arguement that if I've got a tag then killing that animal is my intent, but they haven't got a leg to stand on until I've taken that animal. Up to that point, I'm just hiking with a weapon. So my arguement is that they can either charge an access fee for camping/hiking or one for hunting but their sliding scale is indeed charging you for game and not for an activity. The activity is hunting. Those that make the arguement that the landowner can charge whatever they want for access to their land on any basis that they choose has merit but we don't live in a state of anarchy. Landowners must also operate within the dictates of state law and the selling of game is not within those dictates.

Message Thread:

• Access fee or selling game? GunsmithRob Jan 11 2006
  • Ideas vs people Webmaster Jan 13 2006
    • forgive me, but not entirely a people v idea issue RobR Jan 17 2006
    • Good idea AkHunter45 Jan 13 2006
  • would u prefer they prohibited hunting completely RobR Jan 13 2006
    • not opportunity twodux Jan 13 2006
      • semantics RobR Jan 17 2006
      • Private Land Sheep Hunter Jan 15 2006
    • Right on Rob & mt chignik Jan 13 2006
    • Big assumption B_M Jan 13 2006
      • You said it AkHunter45 Jan 13 2006
        • read the post i was responding to RobR Jan 17 2006
    • Right on RobR martentrapper Jan 13 2006
      • charging twodux Jan 14 2006
      • Afognak timber GunsmithRob Jan 13 2006
      • Native corp AkHunter45 Jan 13 2006
      • prince of wales island muskeg Jan 13 2006
  • So! Why do we have Fedral Fish and wildlife ? Bigmnt Jan 13 2006
    • Constitution PatrickH Jan 13 2006
    • USF&W thenarwhal Jan 13 2006
      • Thanks Thenarwhal Bigmnt Jan 14 2006
      • Dead serious Bigmnt Jan 14 2006
        • feds twodux Jan 14 2006
        • reality muskeg Jan 14 2006
  • Let only the rich hunt! akflyfisher Jan 12 2006
  • The State Does It, Too Mark Jan 11 2006
    • The lower 48 attitudes are creeping up thenarwhal Jan 12 2006
      • scenarios GunsmithRob Jan 12 2006
      • right of retrieval homerdave Jan 12 2006
      • wanton waste? twodux Jan 12 2006
      • Native Land B_M Jan 12 2006
  • attitude homerdave Jan 11 2006
    • game farm attitude Chisana Jan 11 2006
  • Selling Game tccak71 Jan 11 2006
    • Afognak Mr. Pid Jan 11 2006
      • fees for public resources twodux Jan 12 2006
        • trophy fees Mr. Pid Jan 12 2006
          • That's the point B_M Jan 12 2006
            • Fees DPhillips Jan 12 2006
              • Devil's Advocate GunsmithRob Jan 17 2006
              • they do charge twodux Jan 13 2006
                • My Point... DPhillips Jan 13 2006
                  • you DO understand... homerdave Jan 13 2006
                    • ??? DPhillips Jan 13 2006
            • the point Mr. Pid Jan 12 2006
              • what if twodux Jan 14 2006
              • boat launch?? BRWNBR Jan 12 2006
      • Fee's AkHunter45 Jan 11 2006
        • fees Mr. Pid Jan 11 2006
          • Just wrong! Justin Jan 12 2006
          • Land AkHunter45 Jan 11 2006
          • Their LAND - not their game B_M Jan 11 2006
            • agree to disagree Mr. Pid Jan 11 2006
              • the difference twodux Jan 12 2006
            • bitter martentrapper Jan 11 2006
              • Afognak AkHunter45 Jan 11 2006
                • a scam? u got to be kidding RobR Jan 17 2006
                  • yup twodux Jan 17 2006
                    • then about every landowner in the lower 48 ... RobR Jan 18 2006
    • Private Land B_M Jan 11 2006