id="Page_21">[21]Taking the St. Francis River in Arkansas as another illustration, the river might be broken at Madison, Parkin, and Marked Tree. It is true that there are not many mussels, according to report, above Marked Tree, but the region between Madison and Parkin has beds which may well balance the remainder of the river.

The Wabash River, Ind., is one in which the need for protection is most evident; and this stream could be divided at Vincennes and two other points selected with reference to their economic interest in shelling and with regard to an equitable division of the river system.

It might seem that an ideal method of rotation would be based upon the division of a system into six portions, only one of which should be worked in any one year; a new portion would be opened each year, while each territory would enjoy a rest period of five years between successive "open" years for that particular territory. It will be evident that such a scheme, however correct in theory, would be entirely impracticable. The plan of keeping certain regions closed for periods of years while other regions are worked continuously during a corresponding period of years may have some imperfections, but it is probably the best that can be worked out without practically suspending the industry. Undoubtedly the plan will work most efficiently if a proper discretion is used in its application.

PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING CLOSED REGIONS.

The law should plainly stipulate and establish the principle of the closure of the rivers by regions or sections, but the determination of which specific sections are to be closed should be left for determination after investigation by properly qualified authorities.

A comparatively simple plan may be suggested under which the most careful consideration could be given to the local conditions involved as well as to the rights of the State as a whole. The legislature could authorize and instruct the proper State authorities, as the State fish commission, to give due consideration and study to the needs of the mussel industry and determine what portions of the streams of the State should be closed to the mussel fishery for a period of years. It could be further provided that, after the preliminary determination of plans for closure, due advertisement should be made in all regions affected and opportunity given for public hearings in such regions, after which the commission should submit its final recommendations to the governor of the State, who should then issue a proclamation ordering the entire interruption of a mussel fishery in the regions selected for closure. The original legislative act should provide that the proclamation so made should have the full effect of law, and should specify the penalties that [22]would be incurred by violations. It is desirable also that the governor, upon recommendation of the commission, should have power to reopen the closed regions when such action was judged necessary.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

Powers of officers.—It is necessary not only that the duty of enforcement of the law be assigned to specified State officers, but also that they be expressly given the right to inspect and examine mussels or shells in the boats or on land and be empowered to seize mussels or shells held in violation of the law. It is practically impossible to bring about convictions when the opportunity is allowed for destruction of the evidence between the time of detection and the date of trial.

Permits for special cases.—In cases where for the purposes of investigations it may be necessary to take small mussels, the State officers charged with the enforcement of the law should have by law the right to issue special permits for the taking of undersized mussels for scientific uses and not for sale.

Expenses of mussel protection.—The plans which have been advanced in this report can be carried out with a minimum of expense. The simplicity of the measures would reduce the trouble and cost of inspection to the smallest practicable figure. The assignment of the duties of enforcement to existing State commissions or boards which already have field deputies or wardens obviates the creation of any special offices for execution of the mussel laws.

The question of whether steps should be taken to raise special funds on account of the additional burdens that would be placed upon the present boards is one that would be determined by each State in the light of its own conditions and established customs. It would be very undesirable to create a burdensome tax; to do so would only react against the State, and in the end the tax would be paid by the shellers, who are now making only a meager living, for the local shellers would have to sell in competition with the shellers from States where more liberal conditions prevail.

It is another matter, however, to require a nominal license fee for the privilege of working upon the public mussel beds. Such a fee need not be greater than $1 or $2 per season, an amount which could be paid by anyone who wished to shell seriously. Perhaps the idea of a fee of any kind would arouse some antagonism among a certain class of shellers who would enjoy the public stores without return of any kind. Some shellers favor such a license system, and the writer believes that they must all eventually come to see that it works to their own particular advantage in many ways. It tends to create a class of professional shellers, besides providing the necessary means for promoting the abundance of shells.