Sounds like and from what I have seen - the light cuts / clean up and
clear up a lane
might in fact re-populate from the side and bottom up to the top and out
of the cut.

When the new lane, heavy beach replacement etc - these dump a lot of
material
bottom up  and also cut out large areas of productive lives.

So in the sense of doing a deep cut or massive dredge one can or should wait
for production in the slot starts again (bank / slot) and then lightly
trim and put a
percentage up to start along the line but on the top.

I think the beach areas are the worse - constantly cutting - and the
storms cutting
just how anything can hang in there in this without morphing into odd
forms is beyond
me.

Martin

On 1/21/2014 8:34 AM, José Leal wrote:
> Dear Harry and Conch-Listers,
>
> The question of collecting pressure is always present here on Sanibel; I
> often hear how "shelling was much better back in my days" or "before the
> causeway." The fact is that we don't have baseline data to compare with.
> However, it is clear that now we have a population of shellers a few orders
> of magnitude larger than in the "old days," and this will affect the outcome
> and success of any individual collector. Furthermore, independent of
> collecting pressure, environmental degradation, in particular domestic and
> agro-chemical pollution in backbay areas, may have a much more lasting
> effect on the local availability of shells. The main difference is that when
> collecting pressure decreases the shells are there for taking literally in
> the next day, whereas the effects of environmental degradation are
> long-lasting, sometimes irreversible.
>
> Cheers
>
> José H. Leal, Ph.D., Curator & Director of Education
> The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum
> Editor, The Nautilus
> [log in to unmask]
> www.shellmuseum.org <http://www.shellmuseum.org/>
>
>
> 3075 Sanibel-Captiva Road
> Sanibel, FL 33957 USA
> (239)395-2233
> fax (239)395-6706
>
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
>
>
> From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Harry Lee
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Shells & tourists!
>
> Dear Marien,
>
> Strong anecdotal posit.
>
> Do others feel the shells are less abundant on Sanibel beaches than they
> were 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago?
>
> Perhaps a study of the sort that Dr. K. performed should be performed on
> that island's beaches, which to my knowledge are subjected to plenty of
> collecting pressure (empty shells only, of course) and are not raked or
> otherwise altered by man.
>
> Harry
>
>
> At 03:28 PM 1/20/2014, you wrote:
>
> Dear Harry, others,
>
> still I am not happy. But maybe because I remember well collecting shells in
> 1991, Miami Beach, the early morning tidemarks opposite 22nd street. I
> collected a few Niveria nix (Schilder), a Sigatica carolinensis (Dall),
> perhaps a few other micros, before I had to move because they were sweeping
> the beach big time (removing seaweed, beer cans, etc. using tractors with
> really big rakes). Adding up my activities to those of the beach cleaner's
> is totally insane. It's like weighting the elephant and blaming the louse.
> Tell me: how much has Sanibel become depleted, over the years, by shell
> collectors? And how could a big pile of loose (bi)valves be more "natural"
> and "good" than a smaller pile, or none at all?
> The following is taken from the FLMNH site: "Some countries already
> recognize the negative effects of shell removal, including the Bahamas,
> which limits the quantity of shells tourists can export without special
> permits. However, given the multitude of tourism-related processes that
> potentially contribute to shell loss, limiting shell collecting may not even
> be the right answer, according to Kowalewski' . Yes, it may not even be.
> Obviously it is not at all. But thanks to the shell-collecting restrictions
> the Bahamas are safe now, as are the Bahamian tourist industry, the
> beach-raking jobs, and the sand export activities. Sensible measures have
> already been taken!
>
> Marien
>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:47:00 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Shells & tourists!
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> A more sober and disciplined journalistic treatment of the Kowalewski et al.
> report can now be accessed at <
> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/science-stories/2014/01/16/new-museum-study-suggest
> s-seashell-loss-due-to-tourism-may-have-global-impact/ >, which site may
> also be accessed through the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
> website landing page: <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ >.
>
> Of interest to some of our readership is the upcoming quinquennial North
> American Paleontological Convention hosted by FLMNH departments next month;
> see < http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/index.php/napc/home/>.
>
> Harry
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------