if

; : i = :

COMMERCE
ssioner

“HUGH M. SMITH, Com

'T OF

MEN
BUREAU OF

ee

.

~uww
Nit (hi
Natit i
Ee

L Station

, lowa

Fair;

rector U.S. Biologica

Bureaus of Fisheries Document Ne. 793

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF FISHERIES
HUGH M. SMITH, Commissioner

THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER
MUSSELS

By R. E. Coker, Ph. D.
Director U.S. Biological Station
Fairport, Towa

Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 793

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1914

THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS
By R. E. Coxer, Ph. D.

Director U.S. Biological Station, Fairport, lowa

Bureau of Fisheries Document No, 793
2ole3Os—14———— J 1

CONTENTS.

Page.

Present conditions .2..2232.260.Uscs.c5 seme sores eee ele ee 3
The musseltindustry 25.0 sccss fo Sone nae eae oe ee ee 3
Depletion of the resources. .5....<24. 6205-2225 4 es ee eee 4
The interests:of the conimunity- ..2.<.: 22 <2 oo. Sense Ree ee ee 5
Artificial propagation of mussels by the Government................------- 7
Mstablishmentrof propagation °.25--5..,.-2-- aes ee i

Results dependent upon protection...... ike 20s 2 varaemes eee ee e 8
Protection 3.4 025 i. et Ae. Pee ee Re ee ne eee 9
Essential considerations for effective legislation... .... ne ay it 5 Ls tes)
Examination of protective measuréssosco. a0. see ote 220 oe eee ee 10
Two measures for immediate application: =- ..--..:157.222) 8s oo 10
Measures not suited to existing conditions. ...............--------.--- 10

Size limnit—necessity and. application. 25-6. s20-- eee eee eee 12
Exhaustive mature of therfishery 22) 5220 cn. =o ete eee 12

Waste illustrated: at: See cat ntel ene Se iis ey eee 13

Size limit.in relationito economy ...2 2 222226) <a eee 15
Reasons tor the: proposed’ 2-inchelimit . . 9.0... 5. 25. S-. 2 eee 16

Details essential to effective lecislation:.- 522222. 4.2) 4. 2 eee 17

Closed regions—necessity and application .............--.-------+.----++-- 18
Injury to spawning mussels'and to7younme.<. =. 2. =. 22-25-22 5-eeee ee 18
Considerations determining size of closed regions .........-....------- 19
Practicable division of river systems illustrated.............-..-------- 20
Procedure for establishing-closed regions: .. .. .=..<)¢5940-" -2--- se geseee 21
Enforcement of thedlaw. 222 aa. -s5-2% - S20 tabi se cds Jos eee 22
Summary of recommended lesislation.<_.2-..-..- 222-22. 2 sae eee ee eee 23

2

THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

By R. E. CoKeEr, Ph. D.,

Director United States Biological Station, Fairport, Iowa.

PRESENT CONDITIONS.
THE MUSSEL INDUSTRY.

The history of the fresh-water mussel industry gives illustration
of the promptness with which an American industry may be de-
veloped once the pathway is found. Undertaken in a small way
scarcely more than a score of years ago, the manufacture of pearl
buttons began almost immediately to assume the proportions of an
important national industry. As early as 1898, when the enterprise
was only 6 years old, there were about 50 factories in more than a
dozen towns along the Mississippi. With improved machinery and
methods further expansion occurred, until within a few years the
output approximated 30 million gross of buttons, with a value of
many millions of dollars. The growth of the industry has continued
to the present time, but exact figures will not be available until the
Bureau has completed a statistical survey now in progress.

Not less important has been a resultant economic change, or modi-
fication of custom, that has affected practically every person in the
country. Where marine pearl was in rare use, fresh-water pearl,
with its quality and price, came to fill a universal requirement.
In one decade pearl buttons were high in price, used only upon the
better clothing, and commonly saved when clothing was discarded,
while in the most general use were buttons of metal or agate or wood,
which rusted or broke or warped. In the next decade good pearl
buttons, neat and durable, were available to everybody and used upon
the widest variety of clothing. A former luxury had become a
common necessity.

Coincident with the rise of the manufacturing industry, there
developed an important and widespread fishery, directly employing
thousands of persons and indirectly affecting persons and com-
munities of varied occupation. Commencing on the Mississippi

3

4 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

River, the fishery gradually spread from stream to stream, passing
from depleted territory to new and rich fields, until it embraced prac-
tically the entire Mississippi Basin and a portion of the Great Lakes
drainage, from Minnesota to Louisiana, north and south, and from
Ohio, West Virginia, and Tennessee on the east to Arkansas, Kansas,
and South Dakota on the west.

DEPLETION OF THE RESOURCES.

Extension of territory could not be continued indefinitely. While
up to the present time the industry has not failed to obtain shells in
quantity sufficient for the market demands, it has become perfectly
clear that the perpetuation of the industry as one producing a staple
product that is both good and within reach of all people depends
upon successful propagation and effective protection. The supply is
now maintained by regularly invading new territory (and it is
scarcely possible to go farther in this direction), by seeking out the
smaller tributaries of the mussel streams, which could not formerly
have been worked with profit, and in some measure by the devising of
methods that are more effective in capture of mussels. Notwithstand-
ing these developments, all of which indeed conduce to more exhaustive
fishery, an increasing proportion of very small shells is being taken,
the bottoms are being more thoroughly cleaned, and the price of shell
has advanced to a relatively high figure.

A high price for shell has, of course, its advantages. It is good
for the fishermen, provided they can find the shells, and it stimulates
the manufacturers to eliminate waste and to use the most economical
methods. On the other hand, if unbalanced by protective restric-
tions, a continued rise in price is of disastrous consequence. It im-
poverishes the beds by driving the fishermen to the most exhaustive
manner of fishing; even the very smallest shells that can be captured,
which should never be removed from the beds, are taken and mar-
keted, and this, unfortunately, is the actual case at the present time.
(See pl. 1.) Ultimately the higher price of shell becomes an ele-
ment in the price of the finished product and is paid by the public at
large without corresponding advantage to a single person connected
with the industry.

Let it be repeated that a high price to the fishermen is desirable,
but in the present condition they reap no benefit. A higher price
for a disproportionately smaller product brings no added _ profit.
None are so directly interested in the conservation of mussels as the
fishermen themselves. .

Of what advantage is it to the fishermen of the Wabash River,
or to the State of Indiana, that shells are now more valuable, when
a river that once supported a really important shelling industry is.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 5

now practically depleted? Wherein is the benefit to Illinois, when
only one fisherman can engage in shelling to-day where six worked
with profit five years ago? What profit will Arkansas find, when its
rivers are now the scene of the most exhaustive mussel fishery ever
known and the future is being robbed by the removal of infant shells
that are shipped to the markets to be subsequently thrown into the
discard by the manufacturers as too small for any useful purpose ?

THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

An earlier general interest in the subject would have been
awakened had there been a better knowledge of the importance of
shelling industries to the communities at large. As an illustration,
the case of Madison, Ark., may be mentioned. The town itself has
a population cf about 300 and is supported by lumbering, farming,
and fishing industries. During each of the past two years shells
and pearls have been marketed at this place to the value of about
$20,000. This was a crop that could be counted upon regardless of
weather conditions during the season, and it constituted a substan-
tial element in the income of the community at large. Can this
income be counted upon in the future? A dozen years ago fisher-
men made their wages when shells brought $4 per ton, and they can
do no better at this time, when they receive $23 per-ton. In 1913 they
took 200 to 300 pounds per day, where originally they made daily
hauls of 1,000 to 1,800 pounds. The shells are now, it appears, about
one-sixth as abundant as they were a dozen years ago. This is a
rapid rate of depletion, and it is evident that the future can have
little to offer unless something is done to insure the self-perpetuation
of the mussel beds,

The town of Black Rock, Ark., which has a population of about
1,000, offers an illustration where both fishing and manufacture
are involved. It is estimated that approximately $50,000 is brought
into the town and the territory about it each year, of which by
far the greater amount is paid out in the town of Black Rock itself.
What does the future hold for this place? Reliable information
shows that while a few years ago a sheller could take 1,200 pounds
or more per day from the Black River at Black Rock, the daily
catches now run from 100 to 200 pounds. Although shells are bring-
ing about $20 per ton, there is scarcely a daily wage to be made,
and as a consequence the shell fishery immediately about Black
Rock is almost negligible. The shelling is now prosecuted princi-
pally above Black Rock, in the upper waters and tributaries of the
Black River, as about Pocahontas and elsewhere. The process of
depletion is unchecked and the condition is clearly such as to awaken
the enlightened sentiment of the community and the State at large

6 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

to support measures that will insure permanent life and prosperity
to the industry. Here is a business that yields a relatively fixed re-
turn in comparison with agricultural industries, which are so gen-
erally affected, favorably or unfavorably, by the vicissitudes of
weather conditions.

It is of much more immediate concern to the community at large
than it is to the purchasers of shells or to the shellers themselves
that the resources of a particular region should be conserved. It is
a comparatively simple matter for the manufacturer to strip his
plant and to remove his machinery to another locality with unde-
pleted resources; it is an easy thing for the sheller, with his scant
equipment in a house boat, to float down the river, looking to find
another temporary home where his labors may be more profitable.
It is the interest of the community that is threatened. The loss of
a substantial industry affects the profits and the welfare of innumer-
able persons who may have known httle of their indirect interest in
a business in which they did not immediately participate. The com-
munities most immediately affected are those of the river towns
which, as a general rule, are too limited in their sources of fixed
income.

From the standpoint of community economy, an unfortunate fea-
ture of the mussel- fishery, as it has been pursued up to this time, has
been its nomadic character. The policy everywhere has been to clean
up the beds of a locality, or of a stream as a whole, and then to move
to new regions. Temporary cutting plants, or “ factories,” have fre-
quently been established in the vicinity of active shelling, to move
subsequently as the local fishery passed away. Only the larger and
more firmly established branch plants of the principal factories have
maintained a fixed location.

Tt will be brought. out later in this report that it does not appear
possible to insure the best condition of the mussel beds, except by
some plan of rotation; but it would be desirable and favorable to the
interest of all for the mussel fishery to be a permanent and depend-
able feature of the industrial life of the broader communities, if not
of particular restricted localities.

The perpetuation of the mussel resources may well receive the
best consideration of every State concerned and of the National
Government as well. It affects the welfare of thousands of shellers,
of hundreds of river towns over the broad Mississippi-Missouri
Basin, of manufacturers and laborers, east and west, and, it might
be said, of every user of pearl buttons, which comprises practically
the entire population of the country.

The Government and the States can accomplish the desired object
by two principal means—artificial propagation and legislative pro-
tection. It is the province of the present paper to deal primarily

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 7

with the subject of protective measures, but it will be advisable to
give first an abbreviated account of the conditions and possibilities
of artificial propagation, especially as the results of propagation will
be greater or less according to the degree of protection extended to
the young mussels.

ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION OF MUSSELS BY THE GOVERNMENT:
ESTABLISHMENT OF PROPAGATION.

The Bureau of Fisheries has always maintained an active interest
in the development of the fresh-water mussel fishery of America,
which, in its importance and breadth of territory, is entirely unique
in the world. As early as 1897 and 1898, the shell fishery being then
only 4 or 5 years old, the Fish Commission undertook investiga-
tions relating to the various phases of the industry, and several re-
ports were published dealing with the natural history of mussels, the
shell and pearl fisheries, and the button industry. In a general report
on the subject Dr. Hugh M. Smith then recommended measures for
the protection of mussels. No action followed, and in consequence
the scene of the most important fisheries has greatly shifted since
that time.

Some years later there began a special investigation of the repro-
duction of mussels, which resulted in the methods of artificial propa-
gation as developed by Prof. Lefevre and Prof. Curtis, of the Uni-
versity of Missouri, in association with the Bureau. The Government
then established the Fairport Biological Station to engage in the
propagation of mussels and the studies of mussel problems, besides
exercising wider activities in fishery investigations. For a number
of years field investigations relating to the distribution, habits, and
conditions of life of the mussels have been prosecuted by the staff and
associates of the Bureau throughout the Mississippi Basin.

For the first two years at the Fairport station mussel propagation
was carried on in an experimental way, but beginning with 1912 the
practical operations have been conducted upon as large a scale and
over as wide a territory as the available resources permitted. During
the past two years mussels have been propagated chiefly in the Mis-
sippi River from Lake Pepin, in Minnesota, to New Boston, IIl.; in
the Wabash River in Indiana, and in the White and Black Rivers of
Arkansas. During the year ended June 30, 1913, about 150,000,000
glochidia, or young mussels, were put out, and in the first half of the
present fiscal year that number is fully equaled. Such figures appear
large. It is not difficult by the methods of propagation to handle
considerable numbers of glochidia; indeed, it is necessary to work
on an ample scale, for in mussel propagation, as in most forms of
fish culture, what we can now do is to aid the young over the most

8 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

critical period in their life history, after which they must be left to
continue the struggle for existence by their own efforts.

We therefore plan to work in such a way that, even with the
liberal discount that nature will surely apply to our returns, there
may be left a real measure of benefit gained without undue cost.
Many of the young will be lost from falling upon unsuitable bot-
toms and from many other unfavorable conditions, such as confront
every young mussel in nature with more or less frequency. We would
like to remove all of the unfortunate conditions productive of loss,
both to the mussels that we put out and to those that are propagated
entirely by natural means; but this, of course, is not possible.
There are, however, artificial conditions which do injury to the
younger mussels, and it is both desirable and practicable to prevent
such damage as far as can be done reasonably.

RESULTS DEPENDENT UPON PROTECTION.

In the regular fishery for mussels the beds are continually dragged
over with rakes, tongs, crowfoot hooks, or dredges. It is inevitable
that the young mussels will suffer to some extent from this process.
It is quite unnecessary, however, for the “infant” mussels, many of
them too small for any use at all and many more too small for any
economical or proper use in manufacture, to be entirely removed
from the beds. Mussels are thus uselessly destroyed that might be
left to grow to a size at which they would be both commercially
valuable and properly usable; meantime, too, they might take their
natural part in the reproduction of the species.

Furthermore, it would be desirable to leave portions of the rivers
entirely undisturbed by the operations of shelling during periods of
some years. This would accomplish a double object—it would leave
the best conditions for the natural reproduction of the remnant of
the old stock and for the growth of the young mussels and at the
same time it would create a series of reserves in which artificial
propagation could be carried on with the best conditions for maxi-
mum results, In such closed regions the young mussels would have
to contend against only the normal unfavorable conditions which
all mussels have ever had to withstand, without an added toll of
destruction being taken by the direct and indirect effect of the opera-
tions of men,

The simple “closing” of a depleted region, if the exhaustion has
not proceeded too far, may be expected to lead to sure betterment,
and even in time, if the closure were for a very long period, to a
restoration of the former condition when mussels were so richly
abundant. It will be advisable, however, to supplement natural
processes by the methods of artificial propagation in order that the

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 3

replenishment may be hastened and a greater result gained in a
shorter time. We have to contemplate that the beds that may be
closed will have to be reopened after a definite period, for the fisher-
men can not afford to work indefinitely on restricted and depleted
areas, and the supply of available shells must be maintained. A
proper solution as fair as possible to all will be found in a plan
of rotation which will give rest periods to the different portions of
a river in succession. Let this measure be supplemented as far as
may be by Government or State propagation of mussels in the resting
regions.

It is apparent that artificial propagation and protection are inti-
mately related. Restrictive measures alone will yield benefits, but
these will be greater if the protection is followed up by well-directed
propagation. Artificial propagation pursued independently may be
expected to bring results, but the advantages will be considerably
diminished if no steps are taken to lessen the unnecessary destruc-
tion of the young mussels thus given a start upon life.

PROTECTION.
ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION.

Although at least 20 States participate directly in the mussel fish-
ery for the shell trade, only 2 or 3 of these have taken any action
of any kind for the protection of the resources. In some others
measures have been proposed at various times, but without receiving
favorable consideration by the legislative bodies. Indeed, it is prob-
ably well that this is the case, in view of the fact that there has been
no general presentation of the case from all sides to aid in a just
consideration of the matter. The Bureau is prompted to make this
report in the hope that suggestions based upon a long-continued
investigation of the shelling industry in all its phases may be of
material aid to the responsible bodies concerned in the determination
of how best to perpetuate the mussel resources, giving due regard to
the local conditions involved.

Any legislation to be most effective must fulfill certain general con-
ditions. It must be based upon just consideration of the welfare of
all classes legitimately interested in the business, including shellers,
buyers, manufacturers, and the public generally. This is important
not only because fairness demands it but because it is manifestly
impracticable to enforce a law which is framed in disregard of
economic requirements. A law that makes possible the creation of
a monopoly, or one that drives the buyers and manufacturers from
the territory, or that sacrifices the good of the industry to revenue
production to the State, would be so manifestly unsound that further
comment seems unnecessary.

23130°—14 2

10 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

Nevertheless, the element of sacrifice can not be entirely eliminated.
In this case, as in others, ultimate benefits can scarcely be obtained
without. some temporary sacrifice, although it should be aimed to
make the immediate loss felt as little as possible. It is the unwill-
ingness of individuals to make voluntary sacrifices, independently,
for the good of the mussel beds that makes legislation of any kind
necessary. There is a demand for legislative action only because, in
the end, the welfare of all parties concerned is dependent upon the
promotion of abundant growth of mussels.

Finally an eminently desirable feature of any legislation ig that
it shall be so simple, plain, and undebatable as to minimize the diffi-
culty of enforcement. Coupled with this there must be not only an
effective penalty but machinery of enforcement that will work simply
and certainly.

The measures to be proposed will be considered in the light of
these requirements, together with the basic conditions offered by the
natural history and the conditions of life and reproduction of the
mussels,

EXAMINATION OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES.
TWO MEASURES FOR IMMEDIATE APPLICATION.

As appears from the remarks hitherto made, the restrictions which
are immediately required for the preservation of the shell resources
are—

(1) The imposition of size limits for the protection of young
mussels.

(2) The adoption of a plan of rotation of closed regions, whereby
the mussel beds may be given the best opportunity for propagation
and growth.

We do not at this time advocate any other limitations, and it will
be attempted to show that these are so simple to apply and so prom-
ising of effectual conservation that it is strongly advisable not to com-
plicate the situation by a needless multiplicity of restrictions. These
two measures will be fully discussed in subsequent sections of the paper.

MEASURES NOT SUITED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.

Two other measures that have been more or less frequently pro-
posed are the provision of a closed season during certain months and
the restriction of the methods of taking mussels. While it is the
purpose of the present* paper to discuss more especially the positive
suggestions that are offered, it is not out of place to give briefly. some
of the reasons for exclusion of measures which may have been sug-
gested by friends of the industry with sincerity of purpose and which
are not upon their face devoid of merit. Always let it have the first
place in our minds that the one object in view is not to hamper but
to develop the mussel fishery.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 11

Closed season of months.—The aim in establishing a closed season
for the mussel fishery during a portion of the year is either to protect
the mussels from disturbance during a breeding season or else to
diminish the extent of the fishery by limiting its duration.

It might be very proper to protect the mussels during the active
breeding season, if such a season could be defined; but, as a matter
of fact, the various species of mussels in any particular stream have
different seasons of breeding. The mussel industry is based upon a
considerable number of species of economic mussels. There is a
group which has a short breeding term during the summer months.
Such are the species known commercially as “ niggerhead,” “ pimple-
back,” “ monkey-face,” “ maple-leaf,’ “ blue-point,” “ three-ridge,”
ete. The “washboard” seems to have an intermediate breeding
term during the early fall, though it may be that in some cases it
carries its spawn into the winter. Many of the more important
species of mussels have a long term of breeding; in the latter part
of the summer and in the early fall the eggs are deposited into brood
pouches within the shell of the female, and there, after they hatch
and develop, they are carried over the winter, to be liberated in the
spring and early summer.* Of this kind are the “ mucket,” “ sand-
shell,” “ pocketbook,” “ butterfly,” and others.

In view of the variety of commercial mussel species and the di-
versity of breeding seasons, it does not appear practicable to deter-
mine upon a closed season that will accomplish its particular purpose.
The Ilinois law prohibits the taking of mussels in any navigable
water in that State between the Ist day of October and the 1st day
of April; but, as illustrating how such a measure may apply in a
particular case, practically all of the mussels in the principal river
of that State—the Hlinois River—are short term or summer breeders,
spawning some in June, July, and August, others in October and
about that time. Only a few carry the spawn, after its development,
through the winter.

The principal objection to an enforced interruption of the fishery
during a period of months is that it deprives the mussel fishermen
of the right to earn a living by their profession during a portion of
each year. This objection has real weight, and should be overborne
only by decided advantages to be gained from a closed season.

Restricting the methods of fishery—The principal implements for
taking mussels are the crowfoot bar, the rake, the fork, the tongs or
scissors fork, the dip net, and the dredge. These several pieces of ap-
paratus are variously adapted to conditions of depth, rate of current,
and character of bottom, as well as to the aptitudes and customs of
the fishermen. Before a method should be prohibited it should be

* Possibly these mussels liberate glochidia to a limited extent during the fall and win-
ter; but the general statement is well founded.

12 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

known that it can be replaced by one of the more suitable methods,
or else that it is so positively injurious as to require its elimination.
The only implement of capture against which complaints are gen-
erally made is the crowfoot hook, but this is the only method in gen-
eral use which is adapted for taking mussels in the deeper water, and
it is probably in more common use than any other method. Perhaps
in time improvements upon this hook will be adopted to lessen its
injuriousness, or other methods capable of replacing it will be better
known. In the ight of present conditions it would work an unneces-
sary hardship upon a very large number of fishermen to prevent its
use, especially when it appears that the protection of the mussels can
be accomplished by methods more equitable to all concerned.

Still other measures have sometimes been advanced looking to the
limitation of the number of shellers to be permitted to work within
a given territory or to the leasing of shelling rights. Since such pro-
posals have not yet been offered in connection with any properly
worked-out plan by which serious injustice would be avoided and the
interest of the public safeguarded they may be dismissed with the
remark that it is not simply the protection of mussels that is desired
but the protection of the mussels for human use without interference
with common human rights. The absence of inherent wrong in an
idea does not commend it if it carries within itself the seeds of its
own defeat by a method of application, or a want of method, that
allows opportunity for manifestly unjust and intolerable conditions
to arise.

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 rt and m were actually taken for
market, sold, and shipped to the factory. The smallest ones (in the
three upper rows on plate 1) 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 1 would ordinarily be
used by any manufacturer. It is true that some of the shells shown

PLATE |.

SMALL SHELLS ACTUALLY MARKETED. ALL EXCEPT THOSE OF THE THREE LOWER ROWS
SHOULD BE LEFT IN THE RIVERS.

[About one-half actual size, which is shown in inches at right of plate.]

U.S. B. F.—Doc. 793 PLATE II.

Ins

“4

LARGER SHELLS MARKETED AND ADVANTAGEOUSLY USED.

[About one-half actual size, which is shown in inches at left of plate. ]

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 13

have had one blank cut out, and these were actually cut at a com-
mercial 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.

Consequently all shells less than about 1} inches in length, no
matter what the quality, are thrown into the discard. There can
be no difference of opinion as to the pure wastefulness of taking shells
of this size.

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 11, are used at the factories when received, and are some-
times 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.

The use of shells taken between 14 and 2 inches in greatest diameter
does not, therefore, like the marketing of those under 14 inches, repre-
sent absolute waste, but it does denote relative waste or real short-
sightedness from the economic point of view. Shells of this size will
average about 30,000 pairs to the ton, while mussels of such 2 practical
size as 24 inches will average only 15,000. The number of blanks ob-
tained from a ton of shells of the latter size would be just the same as
from a ton of the smaller shells, notwithstanding that only half as
many shells are handled. We are thus, when using the smaller shells,
depleting the mussel beds at twice the necessary rate without any
corresponding advantage.

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.

14 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

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
(which is one-half the number yielded by a pair of shells, or an indi-
vidual mussel).

The fifth column indicates the number of gross of blanks, by com-
putation, yielded by a ton of shells. This computation is based upon
the cutting of 18-line blanks (not the larger 20-line blanks that have
been taken from some of the larger shells in the illustration). 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 dif-
ferent sized shells are adapted for different lines of buttons. The
data herein is for comparative purposes only.

TABLE OF S1IzES, WEIGHTS, AND BUTTON PRODUCTION FOR NIGGERHEAD SHELLS
(APPROXIMATE FIGURES).

Longest dimension. }
a3 Number | }8-line Quantity} Refer to
of mussels blanks of blanks] illustra-
Greater Less er ton per single er ton. tion
resets les arvana, die Sle all :
Inches. | Inches. Gross. Plate I—
j AVA O00 Seen ee 1st row.
1 14 110, QO0) eta Sa eee a 2nd row.
1} 1k 55, OO | es ei ae oo eae 3rd row.
1Z 12 33, 000 2 917 | 4th row.
| 13 2 26, 000 3 1,008 | 5th row.
2 2} 20,000 4 1,111 | 6th row.
24 2h 15,000 5 1,042 | 7th row.
\ 23 23 10, 500 6 875 | 8th row.
| Grad-
ually || Plate II—
23 3 8, 500 a7-8 dimin- || 1st row.
| 3 33 6, 200 a10 ishing |}2nd row.
| 33 | 4 4,000 a12 to less |)2rd row.
| wie) | Sbeee Bae 3, 200 a4 than |/4throw. |
| 650 per
ton.

Bats ae ton mans this table only a few of the larger-sized shells were available, so the estimates

It may be seen from the table that a marketable ton of nigger-
heads 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} inches. Asa
matter of fact, no marketed ton is ever composed of mussels of an
exactly hie size; furthermore, the extremely large niggerhead
shells are very rare eal generally nee 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.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 15

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 (from the same locality) com-
prising only those above 2 inches in greatest dimension would con-
tain about 13,000 pairs, or 37 per cent less than the number now
found in a ton (20,500), 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 com-
putations of shells from a particular locality and must not be as-
sumed 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 1+
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

16 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

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 be-
cause of the extra weight of the discarded portion. Somewhere
between these extremes is the size of shell that yields the largest num-
ber 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 (for this
species) 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 pro-
hibit the pursuit of shelling in so many localities that excessive hard-
ship 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
himit 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:

1. All conditions considered, it is the most appropriate limit that
could be designated for the niggerhead mussel, which is at present
the most important species of wide distribution, and which is, further-
more, the species most lable to rapid extermination. This and spe-
cies closely like it, as the pigtoe, the pimple-back, and the maple-
leaf, are chiefly those that are now being taken in the very small sizes.

2. The same size applies equally well to the related species just
mentioned, as well as to the “hickory-nut,” or “Missouri nigger-
head,” and the “butterfly.”

3. The larger species, as the “washboard,” “bluepoint,” and
‘*mucket,” are generally so evidently valueless in the small sizes that
shellers do not take them. At least it is not yet of observation that
particular injury is being done to these species in this way.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS, 17

4. To insure the least trouble of enforcement of the law, it is neces-
sary that a minimum size be set, below which no shells of any species
may be retained. There are many different species of commercial
mussels, and some of them so intergrade as to make exact determina-
tion a nice matter in some cases. Distinct size limits for the differ-
ent species would introduce peculiar difficulties into the practical
workings of enforcement ; it would be more troublesome to the sheller
to observe the law voluntarily, and loopholes for evasion would more
easily be found by the offender of wrong intent.

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.

Allowable margin of undersized shells —While it may seem desir-
able that no undersized shell at any time should be taken away, never-
theless it is necessary to make allowance for a margin of unintentional
error. Only if the shellers and buyers were to apply an instrument
of measure to each individual shell would all possibility of error be
eliminated. The sheller will naturally, after a few measurements,
come to judge by the eye, and it is desirable that the law should be
somewhat liberal, rather than too stringent in the allowance for
mistakes. There should, accordingly, be a supplemental provision
that if not more than 5 per cent of the shells by number (not by
weight) of any bushel are found to be below the size limit, the law
shall not be presumed to be violated.

Illegal possession—To be practicable of enforcement, the law
should be so worded as to make it illegal not only to bring ashore or
to offer for sale, but also to have in possession, fresh-water mussels
or clams of a size less than 2 inches in greatest dimension. This one
provision will obviate much unnecessary expense, as well as undesir-
able complications in the detection of violations and the prosecution
of offenders. Furthermore, since buyers of the shells would be
equally lable to prosecution, the effect would be to destroy the mar-
ket. for undersized shells, and thus in the most effective way to re-
strain the shellers from taking them.

Method of measuring mussels.—It will be noted that the method of
measure is stated as “in greatest dimension,” with a view to elimi-

18 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

nating every possibility of uncertainty or difference of opinion. Mus-
sels are sometimes measured in length or width or height, but on
account of the irregular form of mussel shells these dimensions are
not always interpreted in the same way. In testing the blank-making
capacity of a shell, commercial men sometimes measure the “ width
on the face”; that is, between the lateral hinge tooth and the lower
margin of the shell. This measure can of course only be taken from
an open shell, and therefore could not serve for our purpose. It is
worth while to call attention to the fact that a 2-inch shell as meas-
ured in greatest dimension would be a good deal smaller than a
2-inch shell in commercial measurement.

An inspector would need to be equipped with an ordinary rectan-
gular 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 recom-
mended that certain portions of the rivers be closed for rest periods
covering several years. It might be thought that in regions of ex-
treme depletion the operation of a size limit would, by making the
fishery less profitable, have the effect of causing a practical rest pe-
riod, 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 par-
ticularly advisable for the conservation of fresh-water mussels may
be briefly mentioned :

1. It has been previously stated that some of the mussels are spawn-
ing, or with spawn, during any period of the year. Many of the
most important species are spawning during the late spring, early
and mid summer; other equally important species form their eggs
in the late summer, when they become fertilized and develop into the
glochidium stage, but the mother clam retains them in marsupial
pouches within her shell during the entire winter and even into the
summer. All species of mussels carry the eggs in the marsupial
pouches during the process of development to the glochidium stage

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 19

or longer, whether the period be for a few weeks or for a few months.
In this condition the mussels are said to be gravid. It is readily ob-
served that when gravid mussels are disturbed they frequently dis-
charge the young, regardless of whether these are mature enough to
be liberated from the parent or not; certain species, such as the nig-
gerhead, are particularly likely to do this.

In the commercial fishery, therefore, not only is much spawn de-
stroyed when large gravid mussels are captured, but it is quite prob-
able 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.

2. In the stage of existence immediately after liberation from the
parent, the young mussels are parasitic upon fish. We are not here
concerned with them during this period of the life history. When
they are dropped from the fish many of the young mussels do not at
once take up life in the sand or mud of the bottom, but we find them
forming delicate threads by which they hang from plants or sticks
or stones or from clam shells, and thus are kept from being washed
away or smothered in the mud of the bottom. We may imagine the
harm to these little mussels that is unavoidably wrought when the
beds are continually dragged over. In like manner, the little shells
that are just beginning to take hold in the bottom may be torn out by
the rake or hooks, to be smothered or washed away to less favorable
bottoms. It will be remembered that when mussels first begin life in
the thread stage or in the bottom if the thread stage is omitted, they
are too small to be found without a microscope.

3. One of the principal methods of capturing mussels is with the
bar and hooks dragged over a large area of mussel bed in taking a
relatively small number of shells. There is chance for these hooks to
injure many little shells when each drag, requiring a period of only a
few minutes, covers a space of bottom 16 feet wide and several hun-
dred feet long. Nevertheless, it is not certain that there is any
method to take its place, and any implement used will accomplish
some injury to the very youngest mussels.

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 enforce-
ment, 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 Tllinois River
should be closed to mussel fishery for a period of several years, there

20 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER 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 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.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 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 shell-
ing 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 re-
gions 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 appli-
cation.

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 determina-
tion 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 legis-
lature 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 pre-
liminary 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 sub-
mit 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 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS.

would be incurred by violations. It is desirable also that the gov-
ernor, 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 en-
forcement 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 destruc-
tion of the evidence between the time of detection and the date of trial.

Permits for special cases—In cases where for the purposes of in-
vestigations 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 ad-
vanced 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.

PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 23
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION.

The legislation recommended for protection of mussel beds, based
upon the considerations discussed in the preceding pages, may be
summarized as follows:

I. (a) A single size limit should be fixed as applicable to all shells
taken. The minimum size here proposed is 2 inches.

(b) The method of measuring the shell should be defined as
“in greatest dimension.”

(ec) Possession of undersized shells, whether or not sold or
offered for sale, should be illegal.

(7) There should be an allowable margin of undersized shells
for unintentional violation.

If. (a) Alternate portions of rivers or river systems should be
closed for a period of years, to permit recuperation of
mussel beds.

(>) The units of division of a river system should be large
enough to make enforcement practicable with least
expense.

(¢) The river would conveniently be broken at the few points
where there is most community interest involved in the
shelling.

(7) Approximately five-year periods of closure are recom-
mended, with some discretion allowed to executive offi-
cers as to duration of period.

(e) Closed regions should be established by proclamation of
the governor of the State, after expert examination of
the mussel beds and after public hearings on the sub-
ject in the communities affected.

Ill. (a) Officers charged with enforcement of the law should be
empowered to examine mussels or shells in boats or on
land and to seize the catch in case of violation, as well as
to arrest or cause arrests to be made.

(6) Provision should be made for the issue of permits for the
taking of mussels of any size or in any region for scien-
tific uses and not for sale.

O

i a te ei ane Seu Me a ina

i Noah han pe eee

ae | 3 je if

7 ca ie, oe 3 pret ber
; a ae Tae ail Mii
-: a bee As trun ce agree pees
ee ee — ae a
yt tilajPighe gdnniete ay PY o. Se 75 Bh ee aswel Ae, ia
| ie shel eae es 3 es Me koiiepre: i 0k feeriks ae : fey
. ~e S 2m eh rT “loge Pecan , tel Tatras: in!
: © ERB oy. sate cele % ae if: +o hee Vilichiv agin Pry pe 7
hee mo i } Wr. if hae in EON aly, : Ne gna) TA es a
7 : 1 REC LS, .
edi en oth ii ed io ieee oly ie bier: ie a Aw
+ hak fh ite Di ie yah mph Wisi: ae ee, ae ee ope. i gps
| 2? ue iid. 8 eee WS elie tea sina} “i ipa i a
7 ; ite Type ik de hy scorn, p09 twit ay ANG ity Ys ee | schudonr - a pa ah
: , a

is
=>
sy - i

: Sing aha etal sk alana
Fix’ aegh re: wit qe ‘lefts Signi ai} ‘hha et tei Ty ar
oar “i! Adee Him 3 WhO Asn yy err re mete
salle ; Ray ini wath yoal b ne et 4 ji ibrag iorings, arts.
a a se ber ‘ath = inal At

. wil i ie abel ; dung siaiaehon D fi thi bifuatul iil.

a a macht! eit SCT pt ak sella A eto os tas gers

a st Wee be drsak he in ‘wi hi “itd Litho vb) "iy ve On AUD Daal we j ; '
ae y . ror i 4) y a, Me Fath e re sy aye ee ee if Jee eet - : oe,
aa a ae: « tairting fi: “pte alt) ru min: eas By Hil site eh ‘Sy ih a
a ; it mt . 4 una 1% i Hs: ik 2 “a } Ay ahs ag, bY e Rta a sii a 4
mR ip ; sf ' ye tie fi 9 j i
Fy 7 ae aie ae eee " aha y ma ila ab A wy}
: yee am ee
; h. wi ere 49 ae hee A hee
Sin ends wae ee eee
ee an ai Lar hig ate an
“sy 4A

coe | f cro

Hee: anes pees