complaint but deciding appeal based on a different affirmative defense). 7 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 8(c) ("When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim, or a 147, §§ 1, 2, SLA 2003; see Revisor's notes, AS 09.10.030 (1994) (describing. 1994 stylistic changes to 1962 statutory language); see also Dault v. Shaw, 322 P.3d 84, 92 (Alaska 2013) (explaining effect of 2003 statutory amendment). 13 . Vezey v. Green, 35 P.3d 14, 20 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 P.2d 304, 309 (Alaska 1990)). 14 . Theresa L. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 353 hat allowing berry picking and fishing was "consistent with the conduct of a hospitable landowner/ and undermines neither the continuity nor exclusivity of their possession”); Peters, 519 P.2d at 831 (<HOLDING>), 20 . Vezey, 35 P.3d at 20 (quoting Nome 2000,
holding that because public use of a beach was permissive the public was a licensee and as such could be excluded from the whole area at any time by the title owner holding that occasional use of the beach by clamdiggers or other trespassers does not destroy  exclusivity holding that the publics use of the disputed road to access the adverse possessors business did not destroy the exclusiveness of the adverse possessors use holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act  of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege holding that the venice beach boardwalk is a traditional public forum