Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

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!)

As I've said often enough, I'm ONLY concerned with Colorado and how the law
applies here.


--
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
 

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

seldom_seen wrote:
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 bandwidth is wasted.

Fortunately he begins all hist posts with "An Internet persona"
so his stuff is easy to skip.

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.

Last weekend while watching NFL football, I repaired the mesh pocket
on my PDF where some chipmunks had chewed it because I left an empty
Clif Bar wrapper in there overnight, at Cave Draw camp on the Bruneau!
This was in early July. The PFD looks odd because I used gray thread
to mend a black mesh pocket, but this produces a certain retro look.
Certainly I wouldn't want to look like a New Schooler.

It's raining here in northern California, so I'll be boatin' soon.

Several weeks ago, I saw a huge bald eagle eating a dead salmon, just
upstream from the pedestrian bridge over the Tuolumne in La Grange.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself seldom_seen wrote:

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.

So, informing Colorado boaters that they may face federal and state criminal
charges if they disturb eagles who have moved in next to a creek is "nothing
positive." I suppose you'd prefer that I just not tell anybody and prosecute
the first person who happens along and let them pass the word?

How very altruistic of you.

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.

Of course, I did manage to get YOU to "waste" some time, didn't I? What does
that say about your intellect?


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

Unless you're planning a pig roast.



--
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:
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.

Thanks for so cogently confirming my hypothesis about the cupidity and
hypocrisy of (some) boaters. That you have to even think about whether you
would have felt guilty shows a selfish disregard for protected species, and
your pathetic attempt to excuse such rationalizations by arguing that there
was no one around to see you is lame.

The issue is, of course, not whether you can "get away" with disturbing
protected species because there's nobody around to catch you, but whether
you are willing to voluntarily curtail your pleasure-seeking in order to
avoid environmental harm, and whether you are willing to both counsel and
monitor the behavior of your boating companions to instill in them a strong
respect for the environment and a belief that one's personal pleasure ought
not be catered to at the expense of threatened and endangered species.

God knows I've heard enough of those kinds of arguments by kayakers against,
for example, jetskiiers and powerboaters. Now that the shoe's on the other
foot, can you walk the walk, or do you just talk the talk?

I think it's highly revealing of the character of the participants here (I
won't smear all boaters with the same brush, that would be unfair) that they
seem to care more about personally attacking me, denigrating my posts and
trying to excuse what would clearly be unethical, illegal and ecologically
insensitive behaviors.

Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that in this case, I'm right and
you're wrong, and that you ought to be with me, not against me, in
protecting nesting eagles by advocating and encouraging others not to boat
through the area? Are you really so mired in blind hatred and narrow-minded
boating access dogma that there is no possible circumstance that might
justify a voluntary access ban? If not, what, exactly, would it take for you
to admit that perhaps, in some specific places, kayakers should not be
allowed to boat there?

The truculent opposition here to a completely legitimate and justifiable
reason not to boat through my property gives boaters a bad name and makes
them look silly and selfish.

--
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 Grip wrote:


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

And if it were class IV water? How would that justify harming (even
potentially) a protected species? Are you so selfish that you truly believe
that absolutely nothing ought to be allowed to impede your ability to boat
wherever you want, whenever you want?

If not, under what circumstances WOULD you agree to voluntarily avoid a
specific area?

--
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