Offenses involving activities like hunting and fishing are generally accepted as falling into the category of regulatory crimes. See: United States v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611, 613 (5th Cir. 2002) (stating that the offense of possessing migratory game birds exceeding the daily bag limit was regulatory in nature); United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796, 806 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that a statute prohibiting the possession of protected eagle feathers was a regulatory act); State v. Mertens, 148 Wn.2d 820, 64 P.3d 633, 637 (Wash. 2003) (holding that fishing without a license is a regulatory offense). As a general rule the commission of a strict liability crime results in a relatively minor penalty. State v. Seyrafi, 201 Ariz. 147, 155, 32 P.3d 430, 438 (App. 2001) ("Although statutorily created criminal offenses with no mental element 'have a generally disfavored status,' . . . strict liability may be appropriate to certain types of offenses in which the 'penalties commonly are relatively small, and conviction does no grave damage to an offender's reputation.'") (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)). In Arizona, a class two misdemeanor is punishable by up to four months in jail and a $ 750 fine. This is well within the range of penalties held appropriate for other strict liability crimes. See Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix, 127 Ariz. 405, 407, 621 P.2d 911, 913 (1980) (holding that a crime punishable by a $ 300 fine and six months in jail qualified as a strict liability offense); See also Morgan, 311 F.3d at 615-16 (holding that a crime punishable by up to six months imprisonment and a $ 15,000 fine was a strict liability offense); United States v. Erne, 576 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating that a penalty of one year imprisonment and a $ 5000 fine was an appropriate punishment for a strict liability crime).