Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:


I simply maintain that Boulder Creek, through my property, is not a
"navigable waterway" and that as such, the public has no right to float
through my property. The Colorado Supreme Court has stated unequivocally
that the public has no right of recreational access upon non-navigable
rivers and streams in Colorado. That's the law. I choose to exercise my
rights under that law to exclude boaters from the creek, which is my private
property, just as you might choose to exclude me from your backyard barbecue
because your back yard is private property.


Would you be willing to allow scenic, recreational use of the section
of Boulder Creek flowing through your property in exchange for the tax
advantages and ecological good-sense of maintaining a conservation
easement?


I already have a conservation easement with the City of Boulder, which in
part precludes such use, and the answer is "no."

The reasons for not allowing access are several, not that I have to justify
my decision at all.

Chief among them is that the area through which the creek flows is a
wildlife preserve and is a state designated Natural Area, and human
intrusion disturbs the wildlife.

Most importantly, there is an active bald eagle nest within 50 yards of the
creek, and any human intrusion may cause a "take" of bald eagles under 16
USC 668, which is a felony with a one year jail sentence and a $5000 fine.

16 USC 668c says that "take" includes "molest or disturb." I have recently
been told that "disturb" includes any activity that causes the eagles to
flush from the nest. This means, for example, that right now even I cannot
go within 250 yards of the nesting tree even to fix my fences, fight a grass
fire or tend to a sick cow. If I can't even enjoy my own property because
the eagles have chosen to nest there, why should a bunch of trespassing
kayakers get to?

And then there's the New Zealand mudsnail, which has recently been
discovered on Boulder Creek just upstream a mile or two of my property, and
which may be in the creek on my property as well. The state is facing a
genuine ecological disaster if the snails get transported to other
waterways, and I'm part of an ad hoc working group with the state division
of wildlife seeking ways to stem the infestation. One of the primary
vectors for transmission is watercraft, including kayaks and innertubes, and
I've proposed that the state should enact legislation to empower the board
of parks and outdoor recreation to ban the use of watercraft on Boulder
Creek between 55th and 95th streets, just as they have banned fishing in
that reach to control one of the other important vectors: fishermen.

And, of course, I simply don't want people trespassing through my property.
It's mine, and I have a right to keep people out. If I want to sunbathe nude
beside the babbling brook, I should be able to do so without having to worry
about a bunch of boaters interrupting my ruminations and my tan. I have
spent my whole adult life protecting and preserving the property and the
wildlife and I don¹t intend to sacrifice that work for the mere selfish
pleasure of some kayakers.

In fact, the only reason anyone wants to boat through is BECAUSE my late
mother and I spent our lives protecting the area and creating a beautiful
natural area. When we bought the place, it was barren, overgrazed ground
with no trees along the creek that was quite unattractive. We changed all
that with a lifetime of work, and I don¹t see why I should be compelled to
share it with johnny-come-lately's who have neither put their labor nor
their money into protecting the property.

There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.


I'll assume you pay substantially less property tax on land designated
"wildlife preserve?" Bald Eagles are indeed among nature's most
majestic birds. I see them often, almost every time I canoe on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River. I was surprised how resilient and
accommodating they are to human intrusiveness. I've seen them very
near busy public highways and residential development, not to mention
the intensive recreational use by humans (fishing, boating, swimming)
of the river where they live. The first I ever saw Bald Eagles was at
Great Falls National Park (Virginia side) on the Potomac River. They
were just upriver from the falls. This area is also a wildlife
sanctuary, but also an area of intense recreational use. I understand
the reluctance to sunbathe nude while fleets of paddlers float by.
Wouldn't want to get a reputation as the crazy, naked guy who shouts
and throws rocks at canoeists.



--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


There are plenty of places in Colorado where people can kayak perfectly
legally, over public lands, and even over private lands with permission. My
ranch is not included in that list. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

But thanks for asking so politely, it's pretty unusual.


I'll assume you pay substantially less property tax on land designated
"wildlife preserve?"

Nope. I pay standard agricultural land taxes, even on the parts I can't use
for crops/livestock, including the parts I'm excluded from six months a year
because of the nesting eagles.

I'd love it if there were an "open space/wildlife preserve" tax bracket, but
there's not. In fact, unless I'm actually producing crops, the land could be
reclassified as "vacant land," in which case the property taxes would be
enormously higher. Our property tax system is antidiluvian and maintains
that vacant land is undesirable and ought to be developed, so that the
government can collect more taxes from it (think eminent domain condemnation
of perfectly good houses to give the land to Wal-Mart, which pays more in
sales taxes). They stimulate development by taxing vacant land at a
relatively high rate. Only because I'm a rancher am I able to qualify for
the agricultural rating.

Bald Eagles are indeed among nature's most
majestic birds. I see them often, almost every time I canoe on the
North Fork of the Shenandoah River. I was surprised how resilient and
accommodating they are to human intrusiveness. I've seen them very
near busy public highways and residential development, not to mention
the intensive recreational use by humans (fishing, boating, swimming)
of the river where they live.

Interestingly, in discussions with some experts, it also seems that they can
be negatively impacted by the LACK of use. Evidently, change in patterns
seems to have a lot to do with it. I've actually seen one of the eagles
sitting on top of a dump truck in my equipment yard, about 20 yards from my
house. He was sitting on the truck, and about 20 bunny rabbits were hiding
under the truck waiting for him to go away.

Still, I've been told quite clearly that "flushing" the eagles is a crime,
and because it's one of only two or three eagle's nests in Boulder County,
the open space people have a program that uses volunteers to monitor the
nests on a regular basis, which means that the area is potentially under
surveillance at all times. This was brought to my attention when the ranger
called to ask about some vehicle tracks observers saw around the tree, which
evidently were from rounding up cattle for sale by my lessee.

And the fact of the matter is that kayakers DO flush these eagles. It
happened last year. Had I known of the federal law, I would have demanded
prosecution.

What ****es me off is that I've been going about my business of managing my
property for much longer than the eagles have been here. They appeared and
started nesting about 10 years ago or so, and evidently my perambulations
didn't "disturb" them enough to keep them from nesting, and I gladly
welcomed them to the property. I love having them here and I love seeing
them fly. However, prior to a couple of weeks ago, they were an asset to the
property that I was glad to have here. Now, they're a liability, and I face
prison for so much as walking around on my own property as I've been doing
for more than 40 years, if some volunteer spy claims that I "disturbed" the
eagles. This is simply not right. Unfortunately, now I'd like nothing better
than for the eagles to go somewhere else so I can use my land again. What a
mixed-up way of encouraging people to provide habitat for endangered and
protected species.

If I'm going to be excluded from my land because federally-protected
wildlife is using it, then I ought to be getting rent payments from the
government for the land I'm not allowed to use.

The first I ever saw Bald Eagles was at
Great Falls National Park (Virginia side) on the Potomac River. They
were just upriver from the falls. This area is also a wildlife
sanctuary, but also an area of intense recreational use. I understand
the reluctance to sunbathe nude while fleets of paddlers float by.

And then there's the problem of me getting arrested for "indecent exposure"
if one of the participants happens to be a child...

Wouldn't want to get a reputation as the crazy, naked guy who shouts
and throws rocks at canoeists.

I don't throw rocks, that's illegal. A lasso perhaps, but only as a last
resort to effect an arrest.

--
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