A Usenet persona calling itself John Fereira wrote:

" wrote in
oups.com:

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.

That depends on the particular site. There's a spot a bit north of here
that I've paddled numerous times that has a pair of nesting eagles. I've
been there a couple of times when the section of water it's on is closed,
presumably because the DEC has determined that boat traffic in the area.
I've seen sections of beach closed off along the Atlantic coast when sea
turtles are nesting and have laid eggs. In other words, padding a kayak or
canoe 50 yards away from a bald nest *may* be illegal if the local agency
(i.e. DEC, Fish & Game) has deemed that the area needs to be protected.

Well, yes, on public land. If a public land entity closes public lands to
public entry for conservation purposes, then it's illegal to enter that
area. That's precisely what the City of Boulder has done with the creek and
riparian area immediately upstream of my property that the city owns.

But when the protected species occurs on private land, no such declaration
is needed, or indeed authorized by the law.

The federal law neither requires nor authorizes a "closure action" on the
part of the USFWS for a specific nest site in order to authorize
prosecution. The law is extremely broad. If there's an active eagle's nest
about, individuals without permits are forbidden to "molest or disturb" the
nesting eagles, period.

It's entirely self-actuating, and it's non-specific as to *how* that
disturbance occurs. It makes ANY disturbance illegal, no matter how close or
far you are from the nest. If the government can prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that your activities, from kayaking 50 yards to mining gravel or
building a house, "molest(ed) or disturb(ed) nesting eagles, you're going
down.

Now, a reasonable and just government will, when it's able, provide NOTICE
of nesting eagles in circumstances where the general public might
unknowingly or unwittingly intrude on them, and it may choose to establish
perimeter fences and otherwise supervise public access, as is done at Barr
Lake near Denver, where there are several eagle nests, but they are not
*required* to do either under the law. The burden is on the citizen to know
and obey the law.

So, if you choose to boat through my property, you risk disturbing the
eagles, which is a crime. If I can document that event and provide that
evidence to the government to aid in prosecution, I will.


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.

A couple of years ago I paddled a section of the upper Delaware river and
saw a dozen eagles over a couple of days. I'm sure that pales in
comparision to British Columbia or Alaska so eagle nests in those locations
are likely not going to be protected, whereas a pair of eagles nesting in an
area which *doesn't* have a large population might be.

Yup, exactly. It's dangerous to generalize about eagle behavior,
particularly when the stakes are as high as they are. That's why I don't
even venture into the exclusion zone while the eagles are nesting.


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


That's really the issue here. Protecting an eagles nest isn't under the
jurisdiction of the general public.

How do you figure that? All just power derives from the people, and citizens
are fully entitled to enforce the law (and even arrest people for violations
that occur in their presence in Colorado...including misdemeanors) and every
citizen has not only a right, but I argue a civic duty and obligation to
assist the government in law enforcement. Providing a surveillance system at
private expense that documents illegal acts in no way diminishes the value
of the evidence in a criminal prosecution. It's commonplace for law
enforcement to seize by warrant or subpoena private video recordings from
all manner of video devices commonly found in public places, including ATM
cameras, security systems and even web-cams, when those recordings are of
probative evidential value.

Nor is it in the least improper for me to actively participate in monitoring
trespassers and reporting them to authorities in order to protect the
nesting eagles. The nest is on my land, so I'm perfectly entitled to take
any and all lawful actions to protect it, even if there was no specific
statute protecting it.

--
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