BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

A Usenet persona calling itself wrote:

I've been looking at various references to the Bald Eagle Protection
Act, and the only part of it that seems remotely relevant is the word
"disturb" in the phrase '"take" includes also pursue, shoot, shoot
at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb'. In
other words, paddling a kayak or canoe 50 yards away from a bald eagle
nest isn't remotely illegal.

It's a violation of the act if the activity flushes the eagle from the nest,
which falls under the "molest or disturb" definitions of the law. According
to the USFWS, flushing eagles from their nests has the potential to destroy
eggs, which are eagles under the law, or cause the eagles to abandon the
nest entirely. That certainly qualifies as "molest or disturb," and I agree
with the ranger's analysis of the law.

According to the ranger who spoke to me, eagles are particularly susceptible
to abandoning eggs because the "energy input" is small. They are less likely
to abandon chicks not yet fledged, but the risk is still there.

Whether paddling a kayak will, in any particular circumstance, cause an
eagle to flush from the nest is an open question, but my experience here on
Boulder Creek is that it has done so in the past. My intent is to document
any intrusions in such a way as to provide proof positive that the intrusion
violated the law.

Which is certainly good, otherwise the residents and vacationers at
Kiawah Island, SC could not get to their homes, as there is a
longstanding bald eagle nest about 50 FEET from the only road into the
island. Having watched that eagle ignore long lines of motor traffic,
it's pretty clear that kayaking 50 YARDS from an eagle is not
intrusive.

Eagles may habituate to human presence, but it depends entirely on the
particular circumstances involved. If, in the case you mention, the eagles
established the nest near the road, and are not disturbed by moving vehicles
passing by, then the occupants are not violating the law. But if people stop
their cars, and get out, and crowd around taking pictures, which causes the
eagles to flush from the nest, then they HAVE violated the law.

In general, eagles are less likely to view vehicles as a threat, so they are
less likely to flush in the presence of a vehicle, particularly if the
vehicle (or vehicles) are ubiquitous and don't stop adjacent to the nest.
But human beings are an entirely different proposition, especially when they
are outside of a vehicle or are making noise, including talking.

It also depends on the particular eagles. If, as in my case, the eagles are
accustomed only to extremely limited human activity more than 250 yards from
the nest, this does not mean that they will likewise tolerate human
intrusion 50 yards from the nest, even if you're in a kayak. The law is
clear and unequivocal: it is up to the individual to make absolutely sure
that he does not cause an eagle to flush from the nest, irrespective of the
actual distance from the nest, be it 50 yards, 250 yards or a mile. The City
of Boulder wildfire teams cancelled a prescribed agricultural burn on city
property more than half a mile west of the nest because the wind that day
MIGHT have blown the smoke to the nest. I told them I seriously doubted that
even if it did, that the eagles would be disturbed, but they didn't want to
take any chances of either disturbing the nest or violating the law.

I think it's ill-advised of you to generalize about all eagles based on one
particular group of eagles. It's also very risky for people to take your
advice, since it is they who will be prosecuted, not you, should your advice
be wrong.

I highly recommend that paddlers review the law, and the cases, themselves,
and judge for themselves whether it's worth the risk of a federal felony
prosecution just to float through my property.

Nice try, though, Scott. How much is the camera costing you?

A bundle. But, the navigability debate aside, I figure if I'm not allowed to
use more than 40 acres of my own property because eagles are using it,
neither should inner-tubers or kayakers.

And if I'm at risk of being prosecuted for so much as setting foot on my own
property too close to an eagle's nest, then I'm certainly going to do
everything I can to ensure that anybody else who illegally uses my property
faces the same risks. That's why I'm installing the cameras, and that's why
I'll refer anyone who disturbs the eagles for prosecution.

I also find it interesting how hard you're trying to dismiss this issue just
to serve your own selfish, pleasure-based motives. It's my experience that
most kayakers claim to be responsible, eco-sensitive people who have no
interest in causing any environmental harm through their sport. You,
however, are trying to pettifog your way out of a perfectly valid and
reasonable restriction of your so-called "right to float" that's intended to
protect a sensitive and important species.

Evidently it's more important to you that you get to do whatever the hell
you like than it is to respect nature and protect threatened species.

How shallow and selfish of you.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser