The Florida Marine Patrol seized 22,000 pounds of lobster tails which had been shipped from Belize, South America, via Miami International Airport. The tails were en route to Chicago and had been temporarily deposited with a Miami freight forwarder. The state instituted forfeiture proceedings pursuant to section 370.061, Florida Statutes (1985), which resulted in a joint stipulation of dismissal.1 Thereafter, the appellant, the National Fishermen Producer’s Co-operative Society (Co-op), the stipulated owner of the tails, petitioned the trial court for relief from the order of dismissal. The trial court denied the relief requested.2 We affirm.

The Co-op raises the questions of whether the seizure of the tails was an infringement on interstate commerce and a violation of the due process clause. We hold that the Florida regulations regarding the possession of the tails, even though in interstate transit, are not too burdensome on interstate commerce so as to violate the commerce clause. Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry, 297 U.S. 422, 56 S.Ct. 513, 80 L.Ed. 772 (1936); New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 29 S.Ct. 10, 53 L.Ed. 75 (1908); Kenny v. Kirk, 212 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1968); White v. Penton, 92 Fla. 837, 110 So. 533 (1926).

The purpose of Chapter 370, Florida Statutes (1985),3 which regulates the taking and possession of saltwater fish, is to conserve Florida’s marine life, which is valuable to its economy, and to protect certain species from extinction. Tingley v. Brown, 380 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1980); Kenny, 212 So.2d at 297; cf. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. at 38, 29 S.Ct. at 11, 53 L.Ed. at 79. To effectuate this purpose, the Florida legislature has declared that possession of undersized crawfish and possession of any crawfish during closed season is prohibited. § 370.14(2)(a)1, (4), Fla.Stat. (1985); Tingley, 380 So.2d at 1292. The Co-op admits lobsters taken from waters within the jurisdiction of the state and those taken from international waters are indistinguishable,4 Kenny, 212 So.2d at 297, thus necessitating the Florida statutes which safeguard the crawfish industry and regulate the possession of saltwater fish as a valid exercise of *432the police power of the state. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. at 41, 29 S.Ct. at 12, 53 L.Ed. at 80; see Kenny, 212 So.2d at 298; cf. Fulford v. Graham, 418 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Any indirect effect on interstate commerce is, therefore, purely incidental and not a violation of the commerce clause. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. at 41, 29 S.Ct. at 12, 53 L.Ed. at 80; Kenny, 212 So.2d at 298. Nor are the regulations a violation of the due process clause. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. at 38, 29 S.Ct. at 11, 53 L.Ed. at 79; Kenny, 212 So.2d at 298; see Tingley, 380 So.2d at 1292. Since the record does not demonstrate any infirmity in the statutory procedure followed in this case in disposing of the lobster tails, see § 370.061, Fla.Stat. (1985), we are likewise unable to conclude that the actions of the state have offended due process. Bruce v. Malloy, 150 Fla. 157, 163-64, 7 So.2d 123, 126 (1942) (en banc).

Affirmed.5