Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?
For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

wrote:

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?
For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Well, the eagles can't be too sensitive. We have a Bald Eagle nest here
in Minnesota just north of where Rice Creek is crossed by Interstate 35W.
On many an occasion I have seen little heads poking up. Guess the drone
of traffic and poor quality of roadside air does not bother them.

As for the navigable thing, remember that Colorado elected a different
basis regarding water rights than did most of the rest of US. There has
been much dialogue here in years past on that very subject. You can poke
another stick into *that* hornet's nest if you want, but I don't think you
will have too large an audience.

As for Freedom in general, you don't have to go back very far to
recognize the erosion that has occurred. But along with Freedom, go
rights and responsibility. We all carry our own sense of Freedom with us
everyday. Not many of us understand the rights of the other
stakeholders. If we did, then we would have fewer encounters with the
law. And if it was easy to do so, we all would spend less time in courts
sorting it out. Like most things, the real truth lies well below the
surface.

Blakely
---
Blakely LaCroix
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
r.b.p clique member #86

"The best adventure is yet to come"

A Usenet persona calling itself Noone wrote:

wrote:

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?
For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Well, the eagles can't be too sensitive. We have a Bald Eagle nest here
in Minnesota just north of where Rice Creek is crossed by Interstate 35W.
On many an occasion I have seen little heads poking up. Guess the drone
of traffic and poor quality of roadside air does not bother them.

As I said in my reply to cramersec, it depends entirely on the specific
circumstances and the specific eagles involved. I can tell you with
certainty that coming within 200 yards of the eagles nesting on my property
will cause them to flush.

Then again, I've seen one of the eagles sitting on top of my dump truck in
my equipment yard not 50 yards from my house, waiting for one of the ten
rabbits hiding UNDER the dump truck to make a mistake. Of course, my dump
truck wasn't the nest, either. It's nearly half a mile away from my house.

It's risky to make assumptions about particular eagles of your experience
and try to extrapolate about what's acceptable behavior in every case.
Certainly CO paddlers CAN choose to take their chances and float past the
nest, and indeed they have done so in the past. Most of them probably didn't
even know the eagle nest was there, and had absolutely no idea they were
violating the law. It's also absolutely true that floaters have violated the
law, because I've watched it happen. Until now I've been unable to document
such intrusions.

But the stakes have been raised, and I'm taking the high-tech solution to
tip the odds in favor of the eagles by setting up a system that will
photographically and indisputably document such activities for prosecution.
Before, you might get away with it because nobody was around to see it or
you could claim ignorance. That's going to end. In addition to the cameras,
I'm installing several prominent warning signs advising floaters of the
exclusion area ahead. That way if they ignore the warnings, they can't claim
they didn't know. And if they ignore the first sign, posted at the upstream
boundary of my property (not to mention the numerous open space closure
signs along the way), and then decide to stop when they reach the second and
final warning sign at the 250 yard limit and walk out, I'll prosecute them
for trespass.

If they proceed, I'll have them picked up at 95th street by the Sheriff and
held for a USFWS agent.

As for the navigable thing, remember that Colorado elected a different
basis regarding water rights than did most of the rest of US. There has
been much dialogue here in years past on that very subject. You can poke
another stick into *that* hornet's nest if you want, but I don't think you
will have too large an audience.

Well, that's the one saving grace of the eagles. When they moved their nest
next to the creek last year, they started a whole new ball game and gave me
a potent weapon to prevent trespass by floaters that is extremely hard to
argue with. The navigability argument is still on the table, of course, and
is proceeding to its conclusion in due course, but the eagles place the
entire weight of the federal government squarely on my side, which is the
only silver lining to the fact that at the same time, my property has been
seized by the feds.

At least I get to use the eagles to keep the kayakers out. Not much in the
way of "just compensation," but it'll do for now.

As for Freedom in general, you don't have to go back very far to
recognize the erosion that has occurred. But along with Freedom, go
rights and responsibility. We all carry our own sense of Freedom with us
everyday. Not many of us understand the rights of the other
stakeholders. If we did, then we would have fewer encounters with the
law. And if it was easy to do so, we all would spend less time in courts
sorting it out. Like most things, the real truth lies well below the
surface.

Below the surface indeed. My intent in starting this thread was to bring
this issue to the surface. There's new "stakeholders" in the game, and all
arguments about navigability aside, this issue trumps the "I can paddle
wherever I want" argument. Here is where we get to see if paddlers are
really eco-friendly, sensitive, responsible citizens willing to sacrifice
their own personal pleasure in order to help conserve a protected species,
or whether they are simply selfish, uncaring pleasure-hounds who care for
nothing but their own small-minded agenda.

It should be obvious to even a child that you are not "free" to do just
exactly whatever you want, whenever you want to do it. Our nation is founded
on the principle of "ordered liberty," not anarchy.

Time to step up to the bar and demonstrate that you are reasonable
people...or not.

In any event, those who choose to float down Boulder Creek through my
property do so at substantial risk. Fair warning has been given.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself wrote:

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?

Um...Boulder Creek is NOT a "navigable water way."

But even if it were the Bald Eagle Protection Act would still apply, and
anyone harassing, molesting or disturbing nesting eagles risks prosecution.
That includes kayakers.

For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Not really. Just because you can float a kayak on a particular creek doesn't
mean it's available for that purpose, as a rather large and extensive body
of law clearly demonstrates.
--
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

Back again claiming the river for himself and hiding behind a pair of
eagles this time. We have lots of eagle nests around our cottage in
northern ontario that people boat around all the timw. I find it quite
a stretch to claim that eagles are disturbed by boaters. Of course you
must have very different eagles than what I'm used to if they're
nesting in colorado in november.

A Usenet persona calling itself Drew Dalgleish wrote:

Back again claiming the river for himself and hiding behind a pair of
eagles this time.

Yeah, well, it is my river, so I don't see a problem with that, and if the
eagles provide me with a way to keep trespassers out, that's fine with me.

We have lots of eagle nests around our cottage in
northern ontario that people boat around all the timw. I find it quite
a stretch to claim that eagles are disturbed by boaters.

Except that the ones on my property can be. I've seen it. But that's not
really the point. The point is to inform boaters that they *may* be so
disturbed, and that disturbing them is a federal offense, and that
activities along the creek are being monitored to prevent any such
disturbance and provide evidence for the prosecution of anyone who does
disturb them.

Those who wish to chance federal prosecution certainly have the capacity to
do so, but the risks are much greater now that they will be caught.

Of course you
must have very different eagles than what I'm used to if they're
nesting in colorado in november.

Well, you need to brush up a bit on eagle biology and habit patterns. Check
with the USFWS if you don't believe me.
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself Grip wrote:

I'm simply too lazy to review the whole thing but wondering.....is it only
in CO? I see alot of Eagles on my local streams in PA. We have nesting pairs
all over that bird watchers, or anyone can get pretty close to.

Yes, it is. The federal law is nationwide. Any time you do anything that
flushes a nesting eagle from a nest you chance being prosecuted under the
Act.
--
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

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.

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.

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

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

" 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.

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.

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.