Under Japan's fishing laws fishing rights are nontransferable. When fishing rights under go a change or are revoked, the present stance is to carry out compensation through a cabinet decision process. However, when present fishing rights are revoked, it seems to be common practice to pay out a sum of money far and away above what the compensation criteria would suggest, and this becoming increasingly the focus of public criticism. Why are the present compensation criteria not working? This is not something that should be put to the greed of the fishermen. The reason lies behind the way most compensation is related to the legislation of government reclamation projects. The agreement of fisherman to the reclamation is a prerequisite in the procedure to get project legislation passed, and the canceling of the fishing rights isn't carried out until such permission is received. Placing this kind of contradictory legal system at the fore, the revision of how fishing and other user rights are to be controlled is an important issue that needs to be addressed in the near future.