Now you have to have a hunting license to shoot at a state archery park. NOT HUNT, just shoot. Just sale a permit to shoot there if raising funds is the goal. Hunting license should be for hunting, nothing else.

If it's a license sale, the state gets federal excise tax money returned for programs and projects.

If it's listed as a permit, they don't get anything back.

Semantics, wording, legalese. The upside with selling a license is we, Alabama, get more $$$ back in excise taxes.

But where does it end. Hunting license for bird watchers? Hunting license for field trials? Hunting license to go hiking?

You been talking to Chuck again ?!

You don't have to have a hunting license. A fishing license or wildlife heritage license will work as well. It's only 10 bucks.

May be just me but seems like fraud to sell hunting license for non-hunting activities in order to recieve funds from the act. Require a hunting license to drive a utv so we get more money?

HUNTING LICENSES FOR EVERYONE!!!!!

Let me clarify what I said. A range just opened in Wetumpka. THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT IS WHAT THE NEWS PEOPLE SAID! That's my source so, them being wrong wouldn't be the first time

Is it an archery park sponsored by DCNR? Then it only makes sense to have a license to use it, since tax dollars didn’t go towards it.

Yes. If any of those activities are on public lands they should have to buy a license to help fund the upkeep, instead of riding on the shoulders if hunters and fisherman.

A hunting license to watch birds?? Why not a "bird watching permit." ? Must just be me because a hunting license should be for hunting, a horse riding license for riding a horse, a hiking license for hiking, etc. A hunting license for field trials ON PRIVATE LAND where no guns are present and no game is taken has already been proposed. How about a hunting license for shooting your bow in your backyard? What's next when a hunting license is required for non hunting activities? Just have them buy a range permit.

Okay how about just a doing stuff outside license?
Call it an outdoor recreation license?

Birdwatchers will watch the shucks out of some ducks but they don't have to buy a waterfowl stamp. Seems kind of one sided. I'm all for making everyone pay to get a piece of the outdoor pie

Just reread this. If your whole problem is with the semantics of the license type and not with the fact that a license is needed I can hop on that bandwagon with you.

That would work. Even list the activities on State property to include hunting and fishing to keep getting the federal funds.

I just don't want the words "hunting" and "fishing" to get broadened to include activities that is not either. Just call it what it is and charge accordingly.

I have no problem buying a liscense to use that resource. It wasnt free to build and it was built for me and you. Heck....im sittin up here in marshall county just twidlin my thumbs hopin that the state hasnt forgot about us....id give anything to have somethin like that...or a wma close by...hint hint. Im tired of drivin all over creation to hunt public land...it sucks. I wish the state would come up her and play around...we are a dessolant wasteland for deer and turkey and it saddens me greatly.

That's basically what the wildlife heritage license is. Look it up. I think it will solve most of yalls problems with the semantics of the hunting license requirements, which are not correct anyway.

You've got a first class state park there to hunt. Plenty of game and very little hunting pressure.

Ohhh...you made a joke...i hope