Ok...after reading the esteemed opinions of Brant and CFM, I reached the conclusion that the state has the right to change the conditions under which the license is used,(harvest availability), but allow the license to be transfered by the holder.

I imagine that the system was set up originally to limit the number of commercials operating? Brant, I thought that the state condiders driving to be a priviledge, not a "right." In the case of driver's licenses, you can't transfer that type of license anyway, so that would not be a good analogy.

The state would be under no obligation to pay that type of license holder back if supended. On the other hand, the state could not just take it without some kind of due process.

So, I think the state can probably regulate the use of the license, but not it's exsistence. If they did, they would probably "suspend" them from usage rather than eliminate them. If they needed to take the license, I'm sure some kind of buy out would be in order if they just eliminated commercial fishing altogether. Just like the logging industry. Non treaty commercial fishing should go the same way, just eliminate it. It's time they learned new way of life anyway. Just my opinion.