A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Why is that? What makes YOU so very special? Why do you think that your
presence doesn't produce the same disruptions that anyone else's does? Do
you have even a shred of scientific evidence to support this assertion?

I thought not.


I don't think I'm special, at all. But, I do observe my impact on
wildlife and the stream environment where I paddle.

No, you just *think* you do. Factually speaking, you simply *cannot* know
the extent of your impacts because you cannot perceive the presence of every
creature that you might be in proximity to.

As Todd aptly demonstrated, sometimes you simply happen upon wildlife as you
float because neither of you saw the other until you came into close
proximity.

One of the great
joys of kayaking and canoeing is the *lack* of impact you have on the
environment. Photographers use these methods to gain access and
capture wildlife photos in a natural setting, without disturbing their
subjects.

Not true. Your statement that photographers operate "without disturbing
their subjects" is false because it assumes that only the "subjects" of the
photos are subject to disturbance.

The fact of the matter is that while a photographer may use stealth and
disguise to avoid spooking, for example, a bird or deer he's seeking to
photograph, while he's stalking his subject, he is in fact disturbing *every
other* animal within a minimum of 200 meters, most of which he doesn't even
know are there.

And even the "subjects" are, in fact, disturbed, to some degree. Animals are
very perceptive, since their survival depends on spotting and responding to
potential threats. Every animal species, and indeed every animal responds
differently to such threats, but they are all *aware* of what's going on
around them, keenly so. And, if you actually know anything about animal
behavior, you know that animals have several different levels of alarm and
many different behaviors in response, depending on the threat.

As a professional photographer who photographs wildlife, I can tell you that
some degree of "disturbance" occurs whenever I'm in the field shooting. How
much depends on the animal. For example, the other day I sat quietly on a
log while a whitetail herd browsed around me. But they absolutely knew I was
there, and if I moved, they had alarm responses, ranging from simple
attention and holding still to fleeing, depending on the animal.

As a bow-hunter, I'm perfectly aware of how extremely difficult it is to
truly conceal your presence from deer, bear and elk, and even doing so
successfully *still* results in impacts on *other* creatures.


Some wildlife actually exhibit a curiosity as a canoe or kayak float
by. I've watched deer, fox, weasel, muskrat and domesticated cattle
take interest in me as I drift past, and display no alarm what so
ever. Some have gotten so close they frighten me! As a matter of fact,
I am always pleasantly surprised by how little my presence affects
animals on the shore. Sometimes they'll actually approach the shore to
see what's floating by.

Even if true, you are *still having an impact* on the wildlife. One of the
gravest dangers to wildlife is "habituation" to humans. It usually results
in the animal getting killed as a result of human activity. Bears get shot
for raiding garbage cans, deer get run over on the highway, cougars
habituate to eating dogs, and end up shot dead.

So, even though you *think* you're not having an impact, you are.


As for waterfowl and Accipitridae, they are keenly aware of activity
on and near the water. After all, the water is their element. I see
eagles and ospreys frequently on the river. They observe me and go
about their business. I've seen them catch fish within 100yds of my
canoe or kayak several times. I get no sense that I impact them at all.

Again, you're generalizing.


Based on my experience in the rivers where I paddle, your assertion
that kayakers are disruptive to eagles is almost absurd.

Not here. On my place it's entirely factual, because I've observed it
happening.

The exception
would be if there are very large numbers of paddlers constantly on the
river, which is also absurd to imagine.

Absurd to imagine? Hardly. Why do you think that river managers on popular
waterways often seek limits on kayaking?




Now, if you happen
to video an eagle leaving the nest as a kayak goes past, how do you
know the eagle is not taking advantage of the kayak?

Doesn¹t matter. During nesting, particularly when there are eggs in the
nest, one parent is *always* on the nest, unless disturbed. That's because
even a few minutes of exposure, particularly in cold temperatures, can kill
an embryo. Go study your eagle behavior before you pontificate about things
you know nothing about.


I know the eagles are much more aware than you of what's going on in
the stream.

Utter hogwash.

If they decide to locate their nest next to a waterway
used by paddlers, you can be sure they've taken the presence of kayaks
and canoes into consideration.

Have they? Or, perhaps they established the nest there in the fall and the
disturbance didn't occur until spring and summer.

It's the oddball behavior of the human
who thinks he's the landowner they have to worry about.

Oh great, I'm corresponding with a Gaia-nut....

Sorry, I've got a land-grant from Congress and a state title that says it's
mine.




There may be fish
swimming away from the bow wave, or behind in the wake that have
caught the eagle's attention.

Lame rationalization. Eagles don't need your wake, and it's far more likely
that your presence disturbed them. In any event, it'll be up to a federal
judge to decide if your silly attempt to avoid responsibility for your
impacts on wildlife have any merit.


It's not a silly attempt. Eagles can observe the behavior of fish near
a canoe or kayak. It's what they do. If the passage of a kayak affects
the behavior of fish in any way, the eagle will be aware of it, and
take advantage of it if he can.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the particular eagle.





You don't know, the eagle and its
progeny may be benefiting from the presence of kayaks.

I'll assume that if you flush an eagle off a nest by kayaking by the nest,
that you're harming the eagles, and I'll see to it that you're arrested and
charged. You can make your silly argument to the judge. I suggest that when
you do, you be prepared for a stay in the crossbar motel.


You have shown motive for using a statute for wildlife protection to
forbid travel on a right of way through private property.

Well, except that there is NO RIGHT OF WAY through my private property, and
I've got the cases which prove it. But even if you're right, so what? What's
wrong with using a perfectly legitimate law to prevent a perfectly
illegitimate trespass?

You have
also expressed disdain for the protective statute because it impinges
on your rights as a property owner.

No, I've expressed ire at the fact that I'm not being compensated for the
taking. I like the eagles. I like having them here. I want them to remain
here. But if I'm going to be divested of my constitutional right to use and
enjoy my property, I expect to be paid for it.

In this matter you have shown
motive that you wish the nesting eagles be disturbed in the event of a
passing kayak.

Not at all. I want to prevent their being disturbed. But if they *are*
disturbed, I also want to be sure those culpable pay the price of doing so,
as an example to others who might likewise choose to disregard the law.

You have also said you will be installing an expensive
camera system to record disturbances caused by passing boats. To what
lengths are you willing to go to show the eagles are being disturbed?

Whatever length is required and lawful. That might include, for example,
making a cooperative agreement with state and/or federal authorities that
*they* will collect, monitor and retain the video data, in a secure manner,
while I simply provide the system and maintenance. That has yet to be worked
out.

As a defense, the incidence of a "rigged" disturbance by the property
owner should be investigated. But, how does one do this without
further disturbance?

A conundrum indeed. But that's not my problem, that's a problem for the
defense. All I have to do is prove the disturbance happened, and that it's
beyond a reasonable doubt that the boaters are guilty of causing the
disturbance. Beyond that it's up to the court to determine the probative
value of the evidence.

In this case federal statute forbids the
gathering of evidence.

How so? The statute no more forbids inspection of the system than it forbids
taking video of eagle nests. The video equipment is located far enough away
from the nest, and is very well disguised, so as not to cause any more
disturbance than, for example, passive telescopic observation of the nest by
volunteer wildlife monitors supervised by the city Open Space department.

The case is dismissed.

Not true. The defense can call witnesses, retain experts and even seek
access to the camera system to verify the integrity of the evidence, all
without disturbing the eagles. The system is being configured specifically
to avoid such challenges.

It's not up to the prosecution to prove that the evidence has not been
tampered with, it's up to the defense to prove that it has, which they're
welcome to try to do.

Oh, and when were you appointed to your federal judgeship?

P.S. Again I note the extreme lengths you'll go to rationalize your harmful
conduct.

--
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