Guys, you'd sort of have to reverse engineer this thing. An example could go like this (and this is only one example, using math my feeble mind can easily work with):
Let's say you made the determination that 1.6MM acres was the appropriate industry involvement. Then let's say people a whole lot smarter than us figured out that 16,000 acres was the right amount to reasonably sustain an outfitter operation. That would mean that 100 would represent the target number of licenses. You could have less licenses and more per outfitter acreage, or vice-versa.
Can't get from where we are today to 100 overnight. I assume everyone would get the chance to operate on the greater of what they have today or 16,000. Then, as and when a license lapsed or was pulled, a license would not be reissued (and would not be eligible for transfer) until the 100 target was reached. After we got down to 100, the remaining licenses (if in good standing) could be sold or otherwise transfered to another otherwise qualified individual and would be eligible for reissue if lapsed or pulled, but only at the 16,000 level.
Under a format like this, at least after the initial setup, wouldn't much matter how many immediate family members held licenses (except the effect on a localized area) as the 1.6MM industry cap would control overall. Now, how long it would take to get to 100 or the 1.6MM is anyone's guess.
To address the concerns of those who would raise landowner's rights issues, landowners who merely charge an access fee (day, season or somewhere in between), and don't actively provide typical guiding activites, would be exempt from licensing. So, if they chose to do so, every landowner in the state could still generate revenue from hunting, albeit they'd need to take a little more active role to do so.