Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Bill Tuthill wrote:

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.

Which, of course, you didn't.


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.

So, knowing the eagles are foraging for winter on the salmon run, and
knowing that it's a federal crime to disturb them while they're doing so,
would you avoid boating in the area so as not to disturb the eagles, or
would you boat anyway, caring nothing if that eagle you might spook off a
dead fish might eventually starve to death because you don't have the
ethical and moral strength to curtail your selfish pleasure-seeking ways for
the benefit of a protected and majestic creature?

--
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
 

Scott Weiser wrote:


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 ecological impact of paddle sports is probably very minimal,
except in areas where paddlers put in and take out. Now, if you happen
to video an eagle leaving the nest as a kayak goes past, how do you
know the eagle is not taking advantage of the kayak? There may be fish
swimming away from the bow wave, or behind in the wake that have
caught the eagle's attention. You don't know, the eagle and its
progeny may be benefiting from the presence of kayaks.




--
Now when the lamb opened the fourth seal,
I saw the fourth Horse.
The Horseman was the Pest

- from "The Four Horsemen" by Aphrodite's Child

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Well it was a knock on paddling flat water after all, and to be honest
everyone I boat with here in the East for the most part are very very
considerate of land owners wishes, and if an access issue, permission is
always asked first and honored if refused. This also goes for respecting
fishermen possibly encountered while sharing streams. As for the Eagles,
it's totally beyond me, and remember I have no idea of the circumstance
you're speaking of, how paddling past a nest, which are usually very high up
could possibly do harm. We're not talking fumes from noisey gas+oil motors
here. I see a nesting pair almost every time I paddle a local stream, and on
more than one occaision see one or the other perched and ripping a fish
apart (yummy) paying me\us no heed. Take care.....
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:


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 ecological impact of paddle sports is probably very minimal,
except in areas where paddlers put in and take out.

See what I mean? You appear to be utterly incapable of admitting that you
might not be the harmless kayaker you'd like to be. You deny your impacts
and minimize them in order to rationalize and justify your selfish conduct.

You could just say, "Gee, you know, you're right, the risk of harming the
eagles is too great, and because I believe in protecting the resource I
enjoy, I'm going to sacrifice some of my use of the waterways to help
protect rare and endangered species. It's not that much of a burden, and
there's plenty of public water where there aren't any such issues, so I'm
going to join with you to protect this important eagle nest site. How can I
help?"

But nooooooo!

I also note the word "probably" in your statement. This indicates that you
actually have no idea at all what your ecological impacts are. But then I
knew that.

There is reliable research indicating that human presence and activity,
particularly in wildland areas, carries a "200 meter bubble" of disturbance
to *all* wildlife within that sphere. For example, researchers in Boulder
have noted decreased songbird populations and nests in riparian corridors
where public access is permitted. This is just as true of kayakers as it is
of trail walkers and mountain bikers, if not more so. Riparian habitats are
some of the most critical and densely-populated biological zones that exist.
Because of the proximity to water, and the vegetation that's supported by
the water, many, if not most vertebrate species use the riparian zone at one
time or another during the day. They use it for shelter, food, nesting
sites, dens and burrows and concealment. When humans float down the creek,
they significantly and measurably disrupt natural wildlife behavior
patterns, not infrequently to a manifestly and quantifiable negative degree.

You can deny it until hell freezes over, but I GUARANTEE you that when you
float down Boulder Creek through my property, you ARE disturbing wildlife. I
watch it happen every year. I see the disturbed wildlife, from ducks to deer
to hawks, owls and eagles. I've lived here for more than 40 years, and I pay
attention to what happens here, both the impacts of trespassers, which is
more harmful because they simply don't know what areas to avoid, and my own
impacts. I know what areas to avoid and when. I know where the fox den,
where the deer bed down at mid-day, and where the owls live. I know where
the rare ants are, where the endangered fern is, and where the mining bees
dig their holes in the sandstone. I know where and when the rare orchid
species live. And despite the fact that it's MY PROPERTY, I at least have
the humility to say that there are times and places I should (and do) avoid
on this property in order to protect the ecosystem.

Do you? I think not. In fact I KNOW not.

It's hubric and ignorant of you to speculate on how "minimal" your impacts
are, because your impacts vary widely depending on the particular stream and
section of stream involved, but the DO exist, without any doubt whatever.
What may be perfectly acceptable in one place may cause a major problem in
others, so your generalization is inappropriate and fallacious.

Such "user impacts" are one reason that the City of Boulder has recently
modified it's Visitor Master Plan for city owned open space to create
"Habitat Conservation Areas" where the public are not allowed to go AT ALL.

As it happens, my property lies smack in the middle of about 1500 acres of
city-owned or conservation easement controlled HCA open space where the
public is forbidden entry. The ONLY members of the public who disrespect
this necessary closure are, of course, kayakers and other river-runners.

Why is that? What makes YOU so very special? Why do you think that your
presence doesn't produce the same disruptions that anyone else's does? Do
you have even a shred of scientific evidence to support this assertion?

I thought not.


Now, if you happen
to video an eagle leaving the nest as a kayak goes past, how do you
know the eagle is not taking advantage of the kayak?

Doesn¹t matter. During nesting, particularly when there are eggs in the
nest, one parent is *always* on the nest, unless disturbed. That's because
even a few minutes of exposure, particularly in cold temperatures, can kill
an embryo. Go study your eagle behavior before you pontificate about things
you know nothing about.


There may be fish
swimming away from the bow wave, or behind in the wake that have
caught the eagle's attention.

Lame rationalization. Eagles don't need your wake, and it's far more likely
that your presence disturbed them. In any event, it'll be up to a federal
judge to decide if your silly attempt to avoid responsibility for your
impacts on wildlife have any merit.

You don't know, the eagle and its
progeny may be benefiting from the presence of kayaks.

I'll assume that if you flush an eagle off a nest by kayaking by the nest,
that you're harming the eagles, and I'll see to it that you're arrested and
charged. You can make your silly argument to the judge. I suggest that when
you do, you be prepared for a stay in the crossbar motel.


--
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:

Well it was a knock on paddling flat water after all, and to be honest
everyone I boat with here in the East for the most part are very very
considerate of land owners wishes, and if an access issue, permission is
always asked first and honored if refused. This also goes for respecting
fishermen possibly encountered while sharing streams.

Good for you! I think that's probable true of most boaters, but I spar with
the zealots who don't give a damn about anything but their own pleasure.

As for the Eagles,
it's totally beyond me, and remember I have no idea of the circumstance
you're speaking of, how paddling past a nest, which are usually very high up
could possibly do harm. We're not talking fumes from noisey gas+oil motors
here.

So what? It's simply a fact that human presence and activity in wildlands
causes wildlife disturbances. The research has been done, and the results
are in.

I see a nesting pair almost every time I paddle a local stream, and on
more than one occaision see one or the other perched and ripping a fish
apart (yummy) paying me\us no heed. Take care.....

As long as it remains that way, you're fine. But again, you cannot
generalize about eagle behavior. Each pair is different, and the amount of
human presence they will tolerate is likewise different.

But you evade answering the questions, which we


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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

I do not justify harming anything or anyone, I've simply never seen such a
case where paddling any stream I've ever been on endangering anything.

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Grip wrote:

Well it was a knock on paddling flat water after all, and to be honest
everyone I boat with here in the East for the most part are very very
considerate of land owners wishes, and if an access issue, permission is
always asked first and honored if refused. This also goes for respecting
fishermen possibly encountered while sharing streams.

Good for you! I think that's probable true of most boaters, but I spar
with
the zealots who don't give a damn about anything but their own pleasure.

As for the Eagles,
it's totally beyond me, and remember I have no idea of the circumstance
you're speaking of, how paddling past a nest, which are usually very
high up
could possibly do harm. We're not talking fumes from noisey gas+oil
motors
here.

So what? It's simply a fact that human presence and activity in wildlands
causes wildlife disturbances. The research has been done, and the results
are in.

I see a nesting pair almost every time I paddle a local stream, and on
more than one occaision see one or the other perched and ripping a fish
apart (yummy) paying me\us no heed. Take care.....

As long as it remains that way, you're fine. But again, you cannot
generalize about eagle behavior. Each pair is different, and the amount of
human presence they will tolerate is likewise different.

But you evade answering the questions, which we


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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:

Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Why is that? What makes YOU so very special? Why do you think that your
presence doesn't produce the same disruptions that anyone else's does? Do
you have even a shred of scientific evidence to support this assertion?

I thought not.


I don't think I'm special, at all. But, I do observe my impact on
wildlife and the stream environment where I paddle. One of the great
joys of kayaking and canoeing is the *lack* of impact you have on the
environment. Photographers use these methods to gain access and
capture wildlife photos in a natural setting, without disturbing their
subjects.

Some wildlife actually exhibit a curiosity as a canoe or kayak float
by. I've watched deer, fox, weasel, muskrat and domesticated cattle
take interest in me as I drift past, and display no alarm what so
ever. Some have gotten so close they frighten me! As a matter of fact,
I am always pleasantly surprised by how little my presence affects
animals on the shore. Sometimes they'll actually approach the shore to
see what's floating by.

As for waterfowl and Accipitridae, they are keenly aware of activity
on and near the water. After all, the water is their element. I see
eagles and ospreys frequently on the river. They observe me and go
about their business. I've seen them catch fish within 100yds of my
canoe or kayak several times. I get no sense that I impact them at all.

Based on my experience in the rivers where I paddle, your assertion
that kayakers are disruptive to eagles is almost absurd. The exception
would be if there are very large numbers of paddlers constantly on the
river, which is also absurd to imagine.



Now, if you happen
to video an eagle leaving the nest as a kayak goes past, how do you
know the eagle is not taking advantage of the kayak?

Doesn¹t matter. During nesting, particularly when there are eggs in the
nest, one parent is *always* on the nest, unless disturbed. That's because
even a few minutes of exposure, particularly in cold temperatures, can kill
an embryo. Go study your eagle behavior before you pontificate about things
you know nothing about.


I know the eagles are much more aware than you of what's going on in
the stream. If they decide to locate their nest next to a waterway
used by paddlers, you can be sure they've taken the presence of kayaks
and canoes into consideration. It's the oddball behavior of the human
who thinks he's the landowner they have to worry about.



There may be fish
swimming away from the bow wave, or behind in the wake that have
caught the eagle's attention.

Lame rationalization. Eagles don't need your wake, and it's far more likely
that your presence disturbed them. In any event, it'll be up to a federal
judge to decide if your silly attempt to avoid responsibility for your
impacts on wildlife have any merit.


It's not a silly attempt. Eagles can observe the behavior of fish near
a canoe or kayak. It's what they do. If the passage of a kayak affects
the behavior of fish in any way, the eagle will be aware of it, and
take advantage of it if he can.



You don't know, the eagle and its
progeny may be benefiting from the presence of kayaks.

I'll assume that if you flush an eagle off a nest by kayaking by the nest,
that you're harming the eagles, and I'll see to it that you're arrested and
charged. You can make your silly argument to the judge. I suggest that when
you do, you be prepared for a stay in the crossbar motel.


You have shown motive for using a statute for wildlife protection to
forbid travel on a right of way through private property. You have
also expressed disdain for the protective statute because it impinges
on your rights as a property owner. In this matter you have shown
motive that you wish the nesting eagles be disturbed in the event of a
passing kayak. You have also said you will be installing an expensive
camera system to record disturbances caused by passing boats. To what
lengths are you willing to go to show the eagles are being disturbed?
As a defense, the incidence of a "rigged" disturbance by the property
owner should be investigated. But, how does one do this without
further disturbance? In this case federal statute forbids the
gathering of evidence. The case is dismissed.





--
Now when the lamb opened the fourth seal,
I saw the fourth Horse.
The Horseman was the Pest

- from "The Four Horsemen" by Aphrodite's Child

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Is this how it goes?

…After countless days fixed on the tiny monitor recording anything that
moves down the protected section of Boulder Creek, Scott is almost
dozing off after spending 18 hours at his post, but the alarms blare and
Scott spots his prey. A group of 12 year olds on inner tubes with
paddles. Scott springs into action calling the Sheriff and USFWS. The
agents immediately drop every thing and set up sting operation a few
miles down stream. The young offenders are apprehended and convicted for
their crimes against humanity. They wont be able to endanger the
environment from Guantanamo Bay.

Scott is hailed a hero. After receiving numerous awards for bravery
and dedication, he gets to shake hands with the president. He is able to
pay his back-taxes after selling the movie rights, his part is played by
Tom Hanks. Paris Hilton becomes smitten with the crime fighter, awed by
his single minded perseverance they spend the rest of their lives making
little Usenet personas.



Scott Weiser wrote:
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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:
: 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.

Ok... you've done your public service announcement.

bye

snip

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:
: 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.

As always, I should mention that Scott didn't buy it, his mom did...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)