116 SALMON GEAR LIMITATION 



tagging and other experiments conducted by the Washington State 

 Department of Fisheries, the collation and study of those statistics 

 by the persons taking part in the current project, and the considera- 

 tion of all the relevant factors by the governmental committees, and 

 finally the deliberate action by the legislature itself, taken to promote 

 the welfare of the people of the state as a whole. 



G. Conclusion 



The legal analysis in this report has obviously dealt with broad 

 questions. The first has been basic to the whole project: would a 

 scheme for restrictive licensing of commercial salmon fishermen on 

 the specified Washington waters be constitutionally valid? As the 

 foregoing material should demonstrate, the answer to this question, 

 broadly speaking, seems to be "yes." The only other question given 

 extended treatment is whether a grandfather clause to assist in the 

 transition into the full restricted licensing scheme would also be 

 constitutionally valid. Again, as the foregoing material indicates, 

 the answer to this question is also "yes." 



If legislation be proposed to effectuate this type of scheme, it 

 will of necessity be in considerably greater detail than that shown in 

 the form of the basic question here considered. Since the details are 

 not readily predictable, however, there has been little attempt to 

 anticipate them in any substantial degree. Only one has been ex- 

 tensively treated — the validity of a grandfather clause. When the 

 full detail is determined, however, further legal analysis should be 

 directed to the specific features. 



One other detail which received some attention was a possible 

 "buy-back" of licenses or equipment by the state in order to facilitate 

 the reduction in the number of participants and the effective ad- 

 ministration and enforcement of the program. With respect to this 

 "buy-back," however, there are some constitutional problems which 

 ought to receive study, should such a detail be thought desirable in 

 the general scheme. The problems center around provisions in the 

 Washington State constitution requiring that "[plrivate property 

 shall not be taken for private use . . ."^^^ and that ". . . taxes . . . shall 

 be levied, and collected for public purposes only."^^^ While the 

 Washington court has decided two cases which bear fairly closely 

 upon the "buy-back" proposal, these decisions did involve somewhat 



172. Washington State Constitution, Art. 1, § 16 (Amendment 9). 



173. Washington State Constitution, Art. 7, §1 (Amendment 14), 



