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.

A Usenet persona calling itself Todd Bradley wrote:

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

He's wrong, as we will see below...


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

Oh, "citizen's arrest" most certainly exists. It's an actual, factual
Colorado statute:

C.R.S. 16-3-201. Arrest by a private person.

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime
has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the
person making the arrest.

State law also gives *exactly* the same authority to a citizen as it does to
a police officer to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect
such an arrest.

C.R.S. 18-1-104. "Offense" defined - offenses classified - common-law crimes
abolished.

(1) The terms "offense" and "crime" are synonymous and mean a violation of, or
conduct defined by, any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be
imposed.

(2) Each offense falls into one of eleven classes. There are six classes of
felonies as defined in section 18-1.3-401, three classes of misdemeanors as
defined in section 18-1.3-501, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in
section 18-1.3-503."

C.R.S. 33-2-105. Endangered or threatened species.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is unlawful for any
person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale,
or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or
receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the
list of wildlife indigenous to this state determined to be threatened within
the state pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.

C.R.S. 33-6-109. Wildlife - illegal possession.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to hunt, take, or have in such person's
possession any wildlife that is the property of this state as provided in
section 33-1-101, except as permitted by articles 1 to 6 of this title or by
rule or regulation of the commission.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in Colorado any
wildlife, as defined by the state or country of origin, that was acquired,
taken, or transported from such state or country in violation of the laws or
regulations thereof.
(2.5) This section does not apply to the illegal possession of live native or
nonnative fish or viable gametes (eggs or sperm) which is governed by section
33-6-114.5.
(3) Any person who violates subsection (1) or (2) of this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor and, depending upon the wildlife involved, shall be punished
upon conviction by a fine or imprisonment, or both, and license suspension
points or suspension or revocation of license privileges as follows:
(a) For each animal listed as endangered or threatened, a fine of not less
than two thousand dollars and not more than one hundred thousand dollars, or
by imprisonment for not more than one year in the county jail, or by both such
fine and such imprisonment, and an assessment of twenty points. Upon
conviction, the commission may suspend any or all license privileges of the
person for a period of from one year to life.
(b) For each golden eagle, rocky mountain goat, desert bighorn sheep, American
peregrine falcon, or rocky mountain bighorn sheep, a fine of not less than one
thousand dollars and not more than one hundred thousand dollars, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year in the county jail, or both such fine
and such imprisonment, and an assessment of twenty points. Upon conviction,
the commission may suspend any or all license privileges of the person for a
period of from one year to life.

Bald Eagles are a state-listed threatened species.
See: http://wildlife.state.co.us/species_cons/list.asp

According the the ranger I talked to, the definition of "take" used in the
Colorado statute is congruent with the definition of "take" used in the
federal law. I'm confirming this with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and
will correct this statement if necessary. I should know tomorrow, but I
doubt I'm wrong.

Thus, federal law aside, it is also a crime under Colorado law to "molest or
disturb" a nesting eagle (or any eagle for that matter, as the federal law
doesn't specify that they have to be nesting), and any private person who
observes such a crime has full legal authority to arrest the person or
persons involved.

And yes, I can (and have) made "citizen's" arrests, and may do so in the
future should the circumstances call for it, though I always try to get the
Sheriff involved before resorting to citizen's arrest. Sometimes, however,
deputies can't respond in time, or the situation is volatile or dangerous
enough that it can't wait and I may have to take action.

The penalties under state law for "taking" a bald eagle range from $2000 to
$100,000 and not more than one year in the county jail, plus revocation of
hunting license privileges from one year to life.

Is it worth the risk for an afternoon's flat water float? You'd have to be
crazy to say yes.

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.

Good thing you didn't "molest or disturb" it...in which case a hole in your
duckie would be the least of your worries.

--
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

Scott Weiser wrote:
Good thing you didn't "molest or disturb" it...in which case a hole in your
duckie would be the least of your worries.

I think I would've felt guilty, but the nearest other person was miles
away and I'm pretty certain that not every inch of the river has
surveillance coverage. So I seriously doubt anyone else would have ever
known - much less arrested - me.


Todd.

Is it worth the risk for an afternoon's flat water float? You'd have to be
crazy to say yes.

Now THAT changes things, NOTHING is worth a flat water float! Make it a
class IV, and bringin out a whole crew! lol

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

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

-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
================================================== ====================


Scott Whiner typed:

Uncle Sam Stole My Land

By Scott Weiser

In an editorial in The Denver Post on November 6, 2005, former chief ofthe
U.S. Forest Service Mike Dombeck and Berkely Conservation Institute director
Jim Martin object to a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act that¹s working
it¹s way through Congress. While they make some valid points, their hyperbolic
argument against compensating landowners when ESA regulations diminish (or
more usually extinguish) their property rights flies in the face of
fundamental fairness and the Constitution. They falsely claim that requiring
government to pay for preserving critical habitat will lead to ³landowners who
want to pollute our air or water demand[ing] to be compensated by the
taxpayers if regulations stop them.² This is nonsensical fear mongering, and
they know it.

There is a significant difference between a landowner asking to be paidwhen
the government seizes his property for use as public habitat for endangered
species and a polluter exporting harm to the public.

The call for just compensation for forcible habitat seizure by government
regulation is firmly based in the constitutional principle that a private
individual should not be forced to bear the entire economic burden for a
regulation of property rights that in all fairness ought to be borne bythe
public as a whole. But that is precisely what the ESA as done since it was
enacted. The entire burden of protecting privately-owned endangered species
habitat has been dumped on those who are the least responsible for the plight
of endangered species‹rural landowners who have voluntarily preservedhabitat.
At the same time, the ESA absolves those who are truly responsible for the
loss of habitat‹the seething public masses who demand more suburban homes and
shopping malls‹of any financial or legal responsibility. That amountsto
nothing more than the political and economic enslavement of the few forthe
comfort and convenience of the many.

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
what was once ³critical habitat² for some creature, I am one of theremaining
few who are not responsible for the plight of endangered species, because we
have preserved what others have not, and I¹ve done so willingly and
joyfully‹until now.

Last spring things changed when an employee of the City of Boulder OpenSpace
and Mountain Parks department who runs their eagle surveillance program
notified me that one of their eagle spotters, who regularly monitor eagle
nests in Boulder County during nesting season, saw some tire tracks in the
snow under the ³eagle tree.² These tracks were the result of our routine
ranching and livestock management activities we¹ve been doing for more than 40
years. While the ranger was very polite, her message was crystal clear:If I,
or anyone working for me, gets caught harassing the nesting eagles, which she
correctly says the law defines as any activity that causes an eagle to ³flush
from the nest,² we could be arrested, jailed, and fined tens of thousands of
dollars under the federal Eagle Protection Act. Given the fact that they ³spy²
on us regularly, this threat is particularly real. To connect my experience
directly to the ESA, although the eagles have been de-listed, preciselythe
same kind of restrictions applies to endangered species and their habitat.

This instantly turned the eagles from welcome guests into legal and financial
liabilities. It had the practical effect of seizing and turning over tothe
government a 500 yard diameter circle centered on the nest. That amounts to
about 41 acres I cannot enter without risking arrest and prosecution, not even
to fix fences, fight fires, chase trespassers or tend livestock. I have been
ejected from my land by the government, which is putting it to use as habitat
for a species protected at the behest of and for the benefit of the public.
It¹s not a seizure for a fire station or a public park, which always requires
compensation, but the effect is exactly the same. The public gets total
dominion and control over my land when the eagles are nesting, and I am
forbidden from using or enjoying it, even to the extent of walking through it,
which is my constitutional right. Neither can I simply cut down the trees or
destroy the nest when the eagles aren¹t actively nesting to relieve myself of
this burden, because that too is a crime, as is destroying endangered species
habitat to make the species unwelcome. How does this not equate to a physical,
government-initiated seizure and occupation of my land on a par with building
a highway or putting in an MX missile silo?

How then would I be engaged in a ³greedy scheme,² as Martin and Dombeck
falsely claim, by demanding that the public pay for the land they¹ve taken
dominion and control of? Why shouldn¹t the public have to share in the
economic burden of protecting the eagles or other endangered species?
Obviously, the public should, but current federal laws, including the ESA,
don¹t force them to, and Dombeck and Martin like it that way. So as it stands
we, the ³Habitat Slaves of the ESA² are forced to both sacrifice our
constitutional rights and maintain the habitat at our own expense, under the
threat of fines and imprisonment. How can anyone think that¹s fair?

This precise scenario has been played out many thousands of times throughout
the country since the ESA was enacted in 1973, with many thousands of
blameless rural landowners as the victims. Landowners have been prosecuted for
simple things like plowing their farmland or cutting brush around theirhouses
to help prevent devastating wildfires. And it¹s done in the name of protecting
species the public places enormous value upon, but without the public as a
whole supporting that preservation.

That¹s the grievance that Rep. Pombo¹s bill seeks to redress. It simply, and
fairly, calls upon the public accept the financial burden of preserving
endangered species and their habitat, and to spread the cost of doing so among
all the people, not place an unfair, ruinous and unconstitutional economic
burden on individuals who happen to own something the public covets‹critical
wildlife habitat.

© 2005
Altnews

This is a copyrighted article from Altnews, and is available for republishing
on a one-time, non-exclusive basis for a fee of $20.00 U.S. Please remit the
publishing fee to:

Altnews
P.O. Box 20507
Boulder, CO 80308

Direct questions or comments to:

Altnews is a division of Windhover Creative Partners LLC.


All the best and happy paddling...somewhere else.
--
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 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...

--
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

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
================================================== ====================

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black.


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?)

Nah. My motive is much simpler. I'm giving due notice in one of the many
forums through which I can reach and notify a segment of the recreational
public, part of whom do, in fact, violate my rights and the law, of a new
threat to THEM. It's just one step in my long-standing policy of defending
my rights. By posting here, and by vigorously defending my rights, I help to
prevent any argument that I have not actively opposed attempts to seize my
property through prescriptive easement.

If you weren't such a myopic hate-monger, you would realize that by
notifying boaters of the nest I'm actually doing them a favor. I could have
just kept quiet about it and then hammered every boater who unwittingly
violated the federal law by disturbing the eagles. I decided that it only
fair to let people know that they are chancing federal prosecution by
floating through my property. That's why I'm going to the expense of putting
up warning signs.

As to whether anyone is or was on my side, I couldn't possibly care less. I
assume that those who actually post here are pretty clear in their
positions. That's fine. But there are many others who "lurk" and don't post,
and it's important to remember this when you try to speak for everyone.
Also, word of this issue will certainly spread from here to other forums and
venues, as it always has. This will help to notify more boaters of the
potential threat of legal consequences for disturbing or molesting nesting
eagles. Many people think that because eagles were de-listed as an
endangered species, that this means that they can now ignore the eagles and
go about whatever they want to do, and the eagles just have to put up with
it.

Heck, that's what *I* though, until the Open Space ranger called me and told
me about the TWO other federal statutes that protect eagles. (Are you smart
enough to find the OTHER one? I don¹t think so...)

So, I learned something I didn't know, and have reacted appropriately by
voluntarily informing an at-risk group of people of the hazard. What the
heck is so wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You just have an irrational and unreasoning hatred of me
because you perceive me as your "enemy."

As to being "insufferably tiresome," if true (which I doubt) that's your
fault (the collective you) not mine. All you have to do is agree with me and
avoid infringing on my rights and invading my property. If you do that,
we'll get along fine. But so long as there is an entrenched, organized
agenda of violating my (and other private landowner's) rights that manifests
itself here, I'll continue to stand up for landowners. If you don't like it,
tough.

I know you may find my arguments "tiresome," but that's a derogation of your
intellect, not an impeachment of my position.


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."

Nice try at redefining "spam-bombing." Sorry, but every post is an original,
so it cannot, by definition, be either spam, or bombing. You just hate the
fact that I type faster than you do, and that I'm willing to continue a
debate for as long as anyone is interested in it. You hate that because you
know I'm right and you're wrong, and you'd just as soon shut me up so that
only your voice and agenda are heard.

Good luck with that...heh...


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.

Nah. I'm just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of claiming to be oh-so
environmentally sensitive while at the same time being so filled with
unreasoning hate that when, after months of NOT "spam-bombing" RBP, I make a
perfectly reasonable post informing paddlers, for their own protection, of a
serious issue of environmental conservation, all you can do is engage in
petty sniping.

You could have engaged in rational debate about the issue of the possible
unintended consequences of boating activities as regards threatened and
endangered species, which is very real issue worthy of discussion. But you
didn't. This demonstrates the shallowness of both your intellect and your
morals.

What a putz.

You certainly are.

--
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

Mr. Weiser is a sad, sad, puppy. His periodic Usenet forays may
provide him with a wierd sense of social contact and a boost for his
ego, but nothing positive is contributed, and a lot of bandwidth is
wasted.

Time wasted interacting with Mr. Weiser's selfish fantasies would be
better spent on paddling, gear maintenance, trip planning, or, failing
that, cleaning out the kitchen junk drawer.

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and only the pig will
enjoy it...

Pete in Atlanta

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:18:30 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle, black.


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?)

Nah. My motive is much simpler. I'm giving due notice in one of the many
forums through which I can reach and notify a segment of the recreational
public, part of whom do, in fact, violate my rights and the law, of a new
threat to THEM. It's just one step in my long-standing policy of defending
my rights. By posting here, and by vigorously defending my rights, I help to
prevent any argument that I have not actively opposed attempts to seize my
property through prescriptive easement.

If you weren't such a myopic hate-monger, you would realize that by
notifying boaters of the nest I'm actually doing them a favor. I could have
just kept quiet about it and then hammered every boater who unwittingly
violated the federal law by disturbing the eagles. I decided that it only
fair to let people know that they are chancing federal prosecution by
floating through my property. That's why I'm going to the expense of putting
up warning signs.

As to whether anyone is or was on my side, I couldn't possibly care less. I
assume that those who actually post here are pretty clear in their
positions. That's fine. But there are many others who "lurk" and don't post,
and it's important to remember this when you try to speak for everyone.
Also, word of this issue will certainly spread from here to other forums and
venues, as it always has. This will help to notify more boaters of the
potential threat of legal consequences for disturbing or molesting nesting
eagles. Many people think that because eagles were de-listed as an
endangered species, that this means that they can now ignore the eagles and
go about whatever they want to do, and the eagles just have to put up with
it.

Heck, that's what *I* though, until the Open Space ranger called me and told
me about the TWO other federal statutes that protect eagles. (Are you smart
enough to find the OTHER one? I don¹t think so...)

So, I learned something I didn't know, and have reacted appropriately by
voluntarily informing an at-risk group of people of the hazard. What the
heck is so wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You just have an irrational and unreasoning hatred of me
because you perceive me as your "enemy."

As to being "insufferably tiresome," if true (which I doubt) that's your
fault (the collective you) not mine. All you have to do is agree with me and
avoid infringing on my rights and invading my property. If you do that,
we'll get along fine. But so long as there is an entrenched, organized
agenda of violating my (and other private landowner's) rights that manifests
itself here, I'll continue to stand up for landowners. If you don't like it,
tough.

I know you may find my arguments "tiresome," but that's a derogation of your
intellect, not an impeachment of my position.


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."

Nice try at redefining "spam-bombing." Sorry, but every post is an original,
so it cannot, by definition, be either spam, or bombing. You just hate the
fact that I type faster than you do, and that I'm willing to continue a
debate for as long as anyone is interested in it. You hate that because you
know I'm right and you're wrong, and you'd just as soon shut me up so that
only your voice and agenda are heard.

Good luck with that...heh...


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.

Nah. I'm just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of claiming to be oh-so
environmentally sensitive while at the same time being so filled with
unreasoning hate that when, after months of NOT "spam-bombing" RBP, I make a
perfectly reasonable post informing paddlers, for their own protection, of a
serious issue of environmental conservation, all you can do is engage in
petty sniping.

You could have engaged in rational debate about the issue of the possible
unintended consequences of boating activities as regards threatened and
endangered species, which is very real issue worthy of discussion. But you
didn't. This demonstrates the shallowness of both your intellect and your
morals.

What a putz.

You certainly are.