(concurring).
I
I agree with the Court that the statute,1 which authorizes the director of conservation [Director of Natural Resources] to "limit the number of fishing licenses” and "determine the qualifications of such licensees”, does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and that the Director of Natural Resources has been given "reasonable discretion to act in accordance with legislatively provided guidelines”.2 1 do not agree, however, that the statute must itself contain standards to guide the exercise of the delegated authority. See People v Fields, 391 Mich 206, 226; 216 NW2d 51 (1974) (Levin, J., dissenting).
I also concur in the Court’s conclusion that the fishing vessel seized pursuant to MCLA 300.12; MSA 13.1222 must be returned because the officials who seized it did not have a warrant and *324there were no exigent circumstances which would justify the failure to obtain one.3
II
Defendants were issued fishing licenses with a number of restrictions. They unsuccessfully challenged the restriction regulating the mesh size of the nets. They apparently continued to use their old nets which violated the license restriction; as required by statute, they reported their use of these nets to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) each month.4
DNR officials claimed they observed defendants fishing with illegal nets. Shortly thereafter they seized the defendants’ fishing vessel.
MCLA 300.14; MSA 13.1224 provides that when the property seized is of greater value than $300, the property shall be forfeited to the state upon a finding by the circuit court that it "was caught, killed, possessed, shipped or used contrary to law”.
Regulation and licensing of vocational and avocational pursuits grows apace as the need to allocate the use of diminishing natural resources becomes more apparent. Effective enforcement of such licensing restrictions is in the public interest. Penal sanctions are a valid means of securing compliance. Nevertheless, if, for example, the motor vehicle code provided for mandatory forfeiture of an automobile for making an illegal left-hand turn or for a faulty muffler or a statute required forfeiture of a manufacturing plant for air or water pollution, a clear abuse of governmental authority would appear. On a proper record we *325should consider whether forfeiture of property for use in excess of authorization — in contrast with forfeiture for manufacture or transportation of contraband — is consistent with relevant constitutional principles.
MCLA 308.1b; MSA 13.1491(2).
The quoted words — "reasonable discretion to act in accordance with legislatively provided guidelines” — are from Justice Williams’ opinion.
1 agree with the Chief Justice that the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures as well as searches.
MCLA 308.20; MSA 13.1511.