Originally posted by Brant:
Long answer. The license commercials have is considered a property right. Under the U.S. Constitution such a right cannot be taken without due process and fair compensation.
The commercial fishing license is a valuable item that someone in the fisherman's family probably paid a nominal fee for at some point long ago, and which the fisherman now owns. Since they own it, it is a right. If the state took it without compensating them, it would sort of be like the state taking your land without paying. Fishermen now "own" the license or right to harvest whatever is allowed. It is the same thing with mining claims, coal leases and natural gas leases. Once the state grants one, it is a right and they have to pay the owner and give due process before it can be taken.
Not to sound too flaming here, but I have to say BS to your quote above.... First of all, you cannot compare a fishing license with property. That is just plain wrong. Do the fish belong to the license holder such as the tree's on someones "property" do? I think not. The fish belong to the people of the state, and are a resource owned by the people of the state and managed by employees of the state. Therefore the priviledge to fish commercially is just that, a priviledge.... Not a right!
Same as driving a car. A person may drive as a prviledge and even own a commercial vehicle and be licensed to drive that commercial vehicle (aka CDL) yet tne state maintains the ability to revoke that commercial driving license.
Your bantor is the general belief but it is nothing more than special priviledge that the commercials have paid for through PAC's but is legally baseless and nothing but political wrangling and BS.....
And to add to this you are also wrong about the mining/grazing leases.... When they expire (most on a yearly basis) they can (the state) make the decision to raise the fee, lower the fee, or refuse to renew the lease as they see fit...
Thank you for your time.....
MC
Previous Topic
Index
