Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
:
: I happen to be one of those oppressed few.
:
: For more than four decades my family has protected and preserved unique
: habitat outside of Boulder, Colo. As a result, we host several protected
rare
: and endangered species on our property. One of the protected species we
host
: is the American bald eagle. The eagles have been nesting here for more than
a
: decade. They were welcome here, and our ordinary ranching operations never
: disturbed them enough to cause them to leave. Arguably they came here
because
: of those activities. As a result of our stewardship, many generations of
young
: eagles have grown up here. Of the vast majority of people, particularly
: including city-dwellers and suburban-sprawlites, all of whom presently live
on
snip

Scott... Do you still actually own that land?

Yup.

I thought you and the boulder creek property split in 2002?

Nope. My mother died in 2002, but the land has been in a family partnership
since 1994. I thought I might lose the land to the estate tax ghouls, but
after more than three years of uncertainty because the IRS sat on its thumb
until late this year, it looks like I might be able to save it. I'll know
for sure by June.

--
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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Todd Bradley wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
Hi, Scott. Which law-enforcement agency is installing this system?
Does it matter?

I was just curious. Geez, are you going out of your way to avoid civil
conversation on this?

How am I being uncivil? I replied to your question with a question because
it's not relevant who is installing the system. The point is that the
system is being installed.


Anyhow, I read from your other posts that no law-enforcement agency is
installing them; it's your own private surveillance system. So you
answered my question already.

You are correct, it is a private system. What's your point?

--
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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:

Hi Scott, I see you are still tiltin" at windmills!

That's me, Don Quixote de la Windhover Ranch.

Sounds like you are up
against the ESA on one hand, and the paddlers on the other!

Indeed. The irony is that the Eagle Protection Act is, in this case, a
two-edged sword. On one hand, it constitutes a taking of my property without
compensation by the government, and on the other, it gives me a potent
weapon in the fight against trespass by floating.

Don't get me started on prairie dogs and the Preble's Meadow Jumping
Mouse...

I myself am
more than willing to paddle somewhere else than on that stretch of the
river, but I assume from your continuing comments that there are some that
continue to hassle you and your eagles!

Not knowingly, at least that I know of. We did have plenty of trespassers
this summer, but I'd guess that most of them had no idea what they were
getting into. That's why I'm going to put up the warning signs. I hope that
most responsible people will decide that their pleasure for an afternoon's
float on a fla****er stream isn't worth the risk of harming a majestic and
beautiful national symbol, not to mention getting arrested.

Of course, I'm equally certain that there are some sphincters out there who
don't give a damn about the eagles or anything else, and will go out of
their way to trespass just to try to "win" some obscure point.

I can only apologize for them, the
eagles I mean! It would seem though that the eagles are the best thing that
could have happened to you to abate the paddler problem. The paddlers are
accountable to the ESA rangers. How do you complain about that? Have you
found that the rangers actually stopped the paddling conflict?

Not so far. Remember, the eagles moved in just last year, moving their nest
from another tree not in proximity to the creek. I suspect they did this
because there was construction activity along the railroad tracks that year,
where the city of Lafayette put in a raw water supply pipeline. I suspect
that this activity caused the eagles to move their nest, providently for me
and unfortunately for trespassing boaters, right next to the creek.

That's why I published the article (in the Boulder Daily Camera) and posted
it here. I wanted to notify people that the situation has changed. I'll be
documenting trespasses on the creek and will be reporting to the USFWS as
well as the local Sheriff, who is in a position to respond and detain
violators pending USFWS response. Then again, under Colorado law, I can
detain them myself if I need to, though I usually try to let the Sheriff
handle it.

I've found
that there is lots of other water to paddle, where I don't have to worry
about grumpy old land owners!

Your attitude is refreshingly adult and reasonable, and I really appreciate
your comments. You have reiterated exactly what I've been saying for more
than a decade now. There's lots better (and legal) places to boat.
Unfortunately, there's a contingent of the paddling community whom I
describe as "access zealots" who are bullheadedly determined to maintain the
fiction that they can, and indeed must go wherever they can float their
boat, irrespective of the legality, consequences or impacts, as some sort of
misguided political agenda. These marginal zealots give responsible boaters
a bad name, and create a lot of conflict that could otherwise be avoided. In
the case of Colorado, they've succeeded in stirring up the hornet's nest to
the extent that they may very well have shot their own toes off and cut off
their noses to spite their faces.


Of course you lose use of the land, but I wonder how many head of cattle
that 41 acres represents?

About 10-15, which equates to about $1300 to $2000 a year for cattle, and
$5000 to $14,000 per year for horses, depending on what equestrian amenities
I decide to offer. But that's just the potential income. The value of the
property itself is much, much higher.

Of course, I'd be happy to lease the 41 acres (it's actually more like 30
acres, because part of the minimum exclusion circle for the nest site falls
on the neighbor's property because the nest is near the property line, which
would have taken too many words to explain in the article) to the USFWS for
$5000 to $14,000 per year and let them put up fences to keep livestock out,
and agree not to go into that area without their permission.

In fact, I'm going to propose precisely that to the FWS at some point.

I plan to seek an "incidental take" permit that would permit me to enter the
exclusion area as necessary for livestock management, agricultural
operations and personal pleasure. If such a permit is granted, my complaint
will end there, as I will again have access to my land and am not liable for
arrest for disturbing the eagles. I don't believe that an incidental take
permit is allowed under the statute for those purposes, so I fully expect to
be turned down.

Then I'll ask the feds to pay rent on the property they've excluded me from.
I think $5000 to $14,000 a year is a bargain for such valuable, rare eagle
habitat. After all, there are only two such nests in all of Boulder County,
and, as they say in real estate, "location, location, location!" I don't
expect that to succeed either, unless Pombo's bill passes, of course. I
could be pleasantly surprised, however, in which case my complaint will
end...so long as they pay the rent. This is the preferred solution.

The final step in the process is to sue the government for
unconstitutionally taking my property without just compensation, thereby
setting a precedent for all existing and future eagle nest (and ESA habitat)
hosts while compensating me for the loss I've suffered.

You can still enjoy the view, which I am sure
would be nice just as a conservancy. Could you not donate the land to a
conservancy group, and take a good tax right off, and still have the view?

Been there, done that. The City of Boulder open space department holds a
conservation easement on the property that prevents most development,
particularly in the White Rocks Natural Area, which is 105 acres including
the cliffs, the creek and the adjacent riparian areas.

However, cattle and horse ranching is still allowed, and is in fact
necessary to the health of the ecosystem.

As for "donating" it, why would I want to do that? This property is
potentially worth millions of dollars (I know because I'm being taxed by the
IRS estate tax as if it has already been developed in to several "luxury
estate" home sites...even though it's not, and likely will never be...) and
it's both my home and my legacy.

Having the "view" is hardly sufficient either. Just last weekend, I spent
the entire afternoon sitting on a log near the creek watching and
photographing the herd of whitetails browsing around me, much of the time
within 15 yards. A month ago, my business partner and his wife saw an
endangered Canada Lynx on the lane.

How can I get THAT "view" by giving the property to someone else?

Besides, I AM a "conservancy." I know more about conserving this property
than anybody alive, so I'm the best person to be stewarding the property
into the future.

I know that this is difficult when you are fourth generation, but sometimes
it is better to bend than to break. My family lost ranch land to the US
Military for air bases during each of the last two WW's, and we got very
little from them in return, and didn't get any sort of view either, but
then that was war time, and we all had to make sacrifices! I understand
that we are at war now, so I suppose that may have something to do with
your present ongoing situation!

That sucks big time, but eminent domain, particularly during wartime, is
just one of those things. I don't think that Homeland Security has their
eyes on my property just yet, fortunately. You did, however, get *some*
compensation, as inadequate as you may have felt it was. I've gotten nothing
for being a good steward of the land and for protecting it so that the
eagles *want* to nest here. That's hardly fair, since it's the public that
puts the value on the eagles, not me.


I wondered what happened to you after all the discussions last Spring, I
got busy during the Summer, and I lost track of the previous conversation,
but it sounds like you are ready for the new cabin fever season! Let the
games begin!

I've been way busy too, producing a second DVD project for most of the
summer and now we're into the marketing effort.


We never kept our lunch appt. so that may still be in the works, if you are
up to it! I realize that prospect may still disturb some of my other
friends here on the RBP, but they should rest easy. I would point out that
I have changed my Nom-de-Plume, having spent the Summer mellowing out. I
might even be protected under that ESA regs! RkyMtnHootOwl 0v0

Life is about each moment of breath,
Living, about each breathless moment!

Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT

and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0


2 WW kayaks,
'73 Folbot Super,
pre '60 Klepper AEII
77 Hobie Cat 16

Glad you're feeling better.

--
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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

please note, that during the process of installing your high-resolution
digital video surveillance and recording system , you were in
violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 USC §§ 668-668d.
federal authorities have been notified.

good day.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself asdffdsa wrote:

please note, that during the process of installing your high-resolution
digital video surveillance and recording system , you were in
violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 USC §§ 668-668d.
federal authorities have been notified.

good day.


Er, no, but nice try. Ever hear the term "telephoto lens?"

You see, the surveillance equipment is being installed far enough away from
the nest so as not to cause the eagles to flush from the nest. Also, they
haven't started nesting yet, so it's not a problem.

Don't try to teach grandpa to suck eggs.
--
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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

" 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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

See, there's that small-minded, petty selfishness I was talking about...


Heh, heh; the technique of the Big Lie: accuse someone else of yer own
sin so that you can pretend to be virtuous.

You probably imagine that there are a bunch of new faces in r.b.p that
don't remember all yer years and years of mail-bombing the newsgroup
with detail after excruciating detail about yer own little problem,
though it has never been clear that so much as a single r.b.p reader
has been amongst the kayakers who have so effectively driven you off
yer nut, and though many, if not most, of us were on yer side before
you became so insufferably tiresome (but you probably don't remember
that; ain't selective memory grand?)

As if yer spam-bombing of r.b.p is not a clear and obvious symptom of,
heh-heh, wallowing in yer own "small-minded, petty selfishness."

You succeed in yer self-proclaimed goal of "annoy[ing] people
WORLDWIDE", and then turn around and act all self-righteous about any
expression of that annoyance.

What a putz.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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

Maybe he could make a citizen's arrest! Assuming such things really
exist other than in TV shows.

This all got me to thinking of paddling down the South Platte this past
summer. We passed with 50 yards of probably a dozen trees with bald
eagles. There was one fallen tree in the river that I paddled by and
then all-of-a-sudden out of the corner of my eye realized there was a
huge bald eagle sitting on it watching me go past. It was close enough
to touch with my paddle (not that I'd do such a thing) and really
shocked me. I was afraid it might reach over and peck a hole in my duckie.


Todd.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Hi Scott! :-)

I still wonder, who would *want* to paddle on Boulder Creek east of 75th
street?
When I paddled Boulder Creek, I think the takeout was at 39th street. Is there
any
whitewater between 39th and 75th, moreover any WW east of 75th? ;-)

This is the same question I've been asking myself lo these many years.
Evidently, people like to experience the natural area and see the cliffs,
and floating through is the lazy way of doing so. I can't say I blame them
for wanting to see the area, curiosity is natural thing. However, just
because they want to see the place doesn¹t mean they have any right to do so
without my permission.


True, with the way the laws are in Colorado. It's not that way in Missouri however,
as we've discussed before. In Missouri, the landowner does not own the surface water
and any boater is well within his legal rights to boat though any private property,
and I believe can even be on the shore up to the high water mark (wherever that is!)

Of course, it's also hopefully common knowlege never to argue legal points with a
landowner with a gun too! ;-)


we got to meet!! :-) )

Someday soon, I hope.

Probably never gonna happen Scott, Unfortunately. I've been unemployed pretty much
since 2002, and am currently trying to get into a nursing program to become an RN,
so I can *get* a job! So my Colorado trips have not been happening for me since,
yano? :-( And I don't see them resuming in the near future either. :-( :-( :-(

John Kuthe...

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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