TOO SALMON GEAR LIMITATION 



if there be some classification of persons involved, as there obviously 

 will be, the classification need only rationally relate to the legitimate 

 objectives. 



At this point it would be well to recall the earlier discussion of 

 what constitutes legitimate objectives, particularly as they relate to 

 the requirements of equal protection. ^^^ It was there pointed out 

 that, as incident to a principal legislative objective, there could be 

 and often were subsidiary legislative objectives. In this instance it 

 should be apparent that there will be that situation. The principal 

 objective is, broadly speaking, the continued and improved utiliza- 

 tion of the salmon resource for the good of the general welfare of 

 the people in the state. Possibly we could also say that, as a more 

 specific objective, the legislature wishes to restrict or control the 

 number of fishermen, the legitimacy of which, as a legislative means 

 to accomplish the broad objective, has previously been discusssed. 

 This could be considered a sort of subsidiary or implementing legis- 

 lative matter, calling, again, for only those specific means for accom- 

 plishment as rationally relate to it. If, then, the immediate purpose 

 be to limit the number, in as fair a way as the legislature can devise, 

 any scheme which accomplishes this objective should be legitimate. 

 Presumably here the fairest system would be by lot; it certainly would 

 have the virtue of removing all suspicion of favoritism. It does not, 

 however, rule out other devices; for example, a scheme based on the 

 order of priority in application after a certain date should be suf- 

 ficient. 



The Washington legislature has provided for one such lottery 

 with respect to natural resources in the statutes dealing with game 

 animals. A special provision (R.C.W. 77.12.150) calls for a draw- 

 ing by lot to determine who may hunt for excess game animals 

 which may have been found to exist in any particular locality. Here 

 the term, "excess," means that there are so many animals in a par- 

 ticular area that they are harming property or over-grazing their 

 range. The object of the provision allowing a special hunt for this 

 excess is thus to bring the game population down only to the max- 

 imum which can be properly sustained in the area. That the legis- 

 lature should determine to use the special technique of limiting the 

 number of hunters for this purpose seems at least rational, in view 

 of the much greater control which is thus available, than if all ap- 



132. See the discussion in the text at nn. 66-74. 



