Defendants (eighteen in number) were charged in bills of information with violation of R.S. 56:497(A) in that they committed the offense of taking salt water shrimp from inside waters (Caillou Bay) during the closed season.

Defendants filed a motion to quash averring that the statute is unconstitutional in that R.S. 56:495(A), which defines “inside waters”, is ambiguous; that there is an apparent conflict between the sketch which forms part of the statute and its recitals; and that the statute is so broad, *203vague and uncertain in failing to define inside and outside waters that defendants cannot safely plead to the charges lodged against them.

The motion to quash was maintained by the court.1 These appeals followed.

The issues presented in these appeals are identical to those raised and decided in the case of State of Louisiana v. Dardar, (Luke, Fitch & Rodrigue,) 256 La. 191, 241 So.2d 905 this date handed down. And for the reasons assigned in those matters, the ruling of the district judge is affirmed.