20 PROTECTION OF FEESH-WATEE MUSSELS. 



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 shell- 

 ing from being carried on in all these little closed areas would re- 

 quire 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 DFV^ISION OF RIVER SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATED. 



For example, let us apply this method of dividing a stream to the 

 White and Black Eivers 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 \Vliite 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 \Vliite, 

 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 sliells were abundant, and they would 

 be Avilling 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. 



\ 



