Read Ebook: The Protection of Fresh-Water Mussels by Coker R E Robert Ervin

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 110 lines and 14271 words, and 3 pages

There remains to deal with the necessity for the two measures that are advocated and to discuss the methods of application. This can be more adequately done in distinct sections.

SIZE LIMIT--NECESSITY AND APPLICATION.

EXHAUSTIVE NATURE OF THE FISHERY.

The necessity for imposing restrictions upon the size of mussels to be removed from the beds is brought out more clearly by the photographs than could be done by any lengthy discussion. All of the shells shown in plates I and II were actually taken for market, sold, and shipped to the factory. The smallest ones were not wanted at any factory; they were bought only because the fishermen had thrown them into the piles along with the larger shells, "to add weight." Most of the very smallest shells, those under 1 inch in length, are subsequently lost in handling, by falling through the forks or otherwise wasting as they are thrown into the car or from the car to the bin. None of the shells in the three upper rows of plate I would ordinarily be used by any manufacturer. It is true that some of the shells shown have had one blank cut out, and these were actually cut at a commercial plant, but the instance was a very rare one and was certainly unprofitable. Even if the manufacturer desired it, the cutters will not handle shells from which only one blank can be cut, since the waste of time outweighs the saving of material.

The shells shown in the illustration are not the smallest that could be found. Some shells observed in the fishermen's boats were only one-half inch in the greatest diameter. Out of the water these are entirely without use. The fisherman who saves them, thinking that they add weight to his heap, would doubtless be surprised to learn that he would have to handle several times and clean 200 of such shells to add 1 cent to his earnings, for it would take nearly half a million of them to make 1 ton.

The shells in the fourth and fifth rows, counting from the top in plate II, are used at the factories when received, and are sometimes particularly favored where the quality is as good as in those from many Arkansas rivers, and the shells will yield two or three blanks of 16 to 20 lines. Such blanks are of a suitable thickness and work up economically besides having a good quality. Some of the shells in these two rows show how blanks of 18, 16, and 14 lines are worked out, a "line" in button measure representing the fortieth part of an inch.

WASTE ILLUSTRATED.

There is given below a table that will repay careful examination as illustrating the wastefulness of using the small shells. While the figures must be understood to be only approximate, they are based upon careful weights and counts of a number of shells from several localities. The shells were all "niggerheads" and were all obtained after shipment to factories.

The first two columns show the limits of size for each lot used, the greatest diameter being the basis of measurement.

The third column shows the approximate number of pairs of shells composing a ton, the unit of purchase; multiplying this number by 2 would give the number of single shells per ton.

In the fourth column there is given, in the case of the critical sizes, the number of 18-line blanks readily taken from a single shell .

The fifth column indicates the number of gross of blanks, by computation, yielded by a ton of shells. This computation is based upon the cutting of 18-line blanks . Some of these shells are cut excessively close to the tips, on account of taking too many larger line blanks. It must be understood that different sized shells are adapted for different lines of buttons. The data herein is for comparative purposes only.

TABLE OF SIZES, WEIGHTS, AND BUTTON PRODUCTION FOR NIGGERHEAD SHELLS .

At the time of making this table only a few of the larger-sized shells were available, so the estimates of blanks are less accurate.

It may be seen from the table that a marketable ton of niggerheads could be composed of the shells of 3,200 or of 33,000 mussels, according as the shells were 4 inches in length or only 1 1/2 inches. As a matter of fact, no marketed ton is ever composed of mussels of an exactly uniform size; furthermore, the extremely large niggerhead shells are very rare and generally not very desirable on account of inferior quality and disproportionate waste. A ton of shells from a region of depletion will also include a number of the smallest and not strictly marketable shells.

Now, let us take a concrete illustration: Several counts of mussels gathered by shellers in the white River near Clarendon, Ark., were made in October, 1913; from these an average was taken that fairly represents the catches being made at that time in that region. It was found that 60 per cent by number of the shells taken were of a size less than 2 inches in greatest dimension; also that a ton of shells comprised 20,500 pairs, of which 12,300 were less than 2 inches. Now, it is evident that if these smaller shells were returned to the bed we would be depleting the bed less than one-half as fast as at present. This would be the substantial advantage that such a size limit would have to the mussel beds; and any advantage to the mussel beds is an ultimate advantage to the fishermen, manufacturers, and all others in any way dependent upon the perpetuation of the mussels. Under the working of a 2-inch size limit, 60 shells out of every 100 then being taken on the niggerhead beds of that vicinity would have been thrown back. This seems to be asking a good deal, but not so much as at first appears, for the undersized shells constitute only 38 per cent of the weight or selling value of the shells taken.

On the other hand, both sheller and manufacturer would be saved the trouble of handling over and over again an unnecessarily large number of shells. A ton of shells comprising only those above 2 inches in greatest dimension would contain about 13,000 pairs, or 37 per cent less than the number now found in a ton , while these shells, the smallest ones being eliminated, would produce at least 10 per cent more buttons of corresponding sizes.

SIZE LIMIT IN RELATION TO ECONOMY.

The figures given above are, of course, based upon counts and computations of shells from a particular locality and must not be assumed to have any general application, but the facts and principles derived do have a universal bearing. If such a size limit as 2 inches is adopted, the saving to the mussel beds and to the future of all interested parties is out of all proportion to the immediate loss to any party; and even the immediate loss is to some extent compensated by the saving resulting from having to do with a lesser number of shells that yield a greater number of buttons per ton.

Undeniably some temporary sacrifice is entailed, but unless it be admitted that temporary sacrifice will be accepted, it is useless to consider any manner of restriction for ultimate benefit.

There is one point that is brought out in the table on page 14 that merits attention from the broad standpoint of economy. In all shells there is a proportion of unavoidable waste, since the entire weight of the shell can not be transformed into buttons. In very small shells we may expect an undue waste, on account of the fact that only one or two blanks can be cut out, leaving a larger bulk of shell in proportion to the number of blanks gained. On the other hand, in very large shells a high degree of waste is involved because of excessive thickness, which must be ground from the blanks, and because of the extra weight of the discarded portion. Somewhere between these extremes is the size of shell that yields the largest number of blanks as compared with the waste or the weight of shell that does not go into buttons. As shown by the data in the fifth column of the table, the shells a little above 2 inches in size are those that make the best yield per ton for the small lines for which there is the greatest general demand.

REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED 2-INCH LIMIT.

Argument might be made in favor of a higher size limit as being still more favorable to the preservation of the mussels, but it is sufficient to say that the economic conditions would not justify a higher limit. At 2 inches a sufficiently severe restriction is placed upon the fishery, and to go further would be practically to prohibit the pursuit of shelling in so many localities that excessive hardship would be caused.

As consideration thus far has been given almost exclusively to the niggerhead shell, the question may well be raised, Will the same limit apply to other species of shells? The minimum size of 2 inches suggested can be taken as an absolute minimum, since there is no species of any importance for which it would be too high. This minimum would not, however, give the same degree of protection to the larger forms, such as the washboard, the bluepoint, and the mucket. Should a minimum size be fixed with particular reference to any one of these varieties, it would necessarily be a good deal higher.

In the present paper recommendation is made for this one-size limit alone, for the following reasons:

Should conditions in certain States or streams subsequently require a higher limit for particular kinds of shells, a supplemental limit may be fixed for designated species; but this could be done without affecting the application of a 2-inch limit as an absolute or universal limit below which no shells of any species could be lawfully taken. It is desirable that few different limits should ever be used, and it seems expedient to have but one size limit until the first legislation shall have been tried out.

DETAILS ESSENTIAL TO EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION.

In concluding this section emphasis may be laid on the value of certain details of legislation.

An inspector would need to be equipped with an ordinary rectangular caliper. If a shell should be found to measure more than 2 inches in any linear direction it would be considered as above the size limit.

CLOSED REGIONS--NECESSITY AND APPLICATION.

In addition to the provision of size limits it is strongly recommended that certain portions of the rivers be closed for rest periods covering several years. It might be thought that in regions of extreme depletion the operation of a size limit would, by making the fishery less profitable, have the effect of causing a practical rest period, but this can not be expected, for, stimulated by the high price of shells and the ever-present hope of making a pearl find, the local shellers will hardly ever desist entirely from the fishery.

No better way of giving protection to mussels can be found than that of entirely stopping the shelling upon a series of beds, although the plan must be applied in such a way as not to reduce the supply of mussels unduly and suddenly and with as careful regard as possible to the established interest of communities.

INJURY TO SPAWNING MUSSELS AND TO YOUNG.

Some of the conditions that make a system of closed regions particularly advisable for the conservation of fresh-water mussels may be briefly mentioned:

In the commercial fishery, therefore, not only is much spawn destroyed when large gravid mussels are captured, but it is quite probable that other mussels, disturbed on the bottom, though not captured, are caused to abort the young in an immature stage when they are entirely unable to complete the development without the parent.

CONSIDERATIONS DETERMINING SIZE OF CLOSED REGIONS.

In planning for the closing of portions of rivers for periods of years consideration should be given to community needs as well as to general economic and biological conditions. On the one hand, the closure will be more effective in result, as well as easier of enforcement, if the regions of closure are made very large; while, on the other hand, making the closed regions smaller might cause less economic inconvenience. If, for example, the entire Illinois River should be closed to mussel fishery for a period of several years, there might be a substantial uncompensated loss to some communities, where there are factories employing labor to cut shells derived from that river. On the other hand, should we divide the river up into small sections of 2 or 3 miles in extent, some of which would be open while others would be closed under the law, it is apparent that such a plan would be almost impossible of enforcement. To prevent shelling from being carried on in all these little, closed areas would require a force of wardens and an expense entirely incommensurate with the object to be gained.

It is held advisable to divide a river within a single State into some four or six sections for the purpose of establishing closed regions. One-half--that is, two or three--of these sections, taken in alternation, could be ordered closed for a period of five years, during which no mussel fishing at all should be allowed in the closed sections, although it would be regularly prosecuted in the alternate portions of the stream. It would be convenient to break a river at points where there was a substantial community interest in the shelling.

PRACTICABLE DIVISION OF RIVER SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATED.

For example, let us apply this method of dividing a stream to the White and Black Rivers in Arkansas. Starting from the head-waters of the Black River, we find the first center of economic interest at Black Rock, another on the White River at Newport, and a third at Clarendon. Now, the river might properly be broken at these points, forming four main sections. The fishery might then be entirely prohibited for several years from the mouth of the river to Clarendon, while permitted from Clarendon to Newport, and again prohibited from Newport northward to Black Rock on the Black River, and to Batesville or other suitable point on the upper White, while permitted from Black Rock and Batesville northward on all the tributaries. We would have the river system divided into four sections, which would be probably as nearly equivalent as could be expected. Furthermore, none of the three towns mentioned would be cut off from the local supply of shells, except in one direction.

The shellers, generally speaking, would be little affected, since, with their house boats, they could move from one portion of the river to another. Those shellers who do not use house boats, but are local residents and go out only by day from their homes, would be most affected, and it is these generally who are most in favor of closing portions of a river. They recall how much more easily shells were taken in past times when the shells were abundant, and they would be willing to do something else meantime in order that the beds may be given a rest and the shells again become numerous. Shelling has no attraction over any other form of crude labor when the shells are so scarce that a wage can scarcely be made.

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 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.

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 or 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.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet