Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Grip wrote:

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.

How would you know if you're disturbing wildlife or not? Even if you observe
one type of wildlife you don't appear to be disturbing, how can you be sure
that you're not disturbing other species? Are you aware of every species
along the river and what your impact on each is? Of course you aren't.

We have to look at the research into such disturbances to determine your
impacts, and the research says you are certainly impacting, to one degree or
another, all wildlife you encounter along the river, whether you see them or
not.

If your presence causes an animal not to water at the stream, that's an
impact. And the cumulative impact of many boaters may have substantial
impacts even on species that tend to be tolerant of human activity.



--
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:

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.

No, you just *think* you do. Factually speaking, you simply *cannot* know
the extent of your impacts because you cannot perceive the presence of every
creature that you might be in proximity to.

As Todd aptly demonstrated, sometimes you simply happen upon wildlife as you
float because neither of you saw the other until you came into close
proximity.

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.

Not true. Your statement that photographers operate "without disturbing
their subjects" is false because it assumes that only the "subjects" of the
photos are subject to disturbance.

The fact of the matter is that while a photographer may use stealth and
disguise to avoid spooking, for example, a bird or deer he's seeking to
photograph, while he's stalking his subject, he is in fact disturbing *every
other* animal within a minimum of 200 meters, most of which he doesn't even
know are there.

And even the "subjects" are, in fact, disturbed, to some degree. Animals are
very perceptive, since their survival depends on spotting and responding to
potential threats. Every animal species, and indeed every animal responds
differently to such threats, but they are all *aware* of what's going on
around them, keenly so. And, if you actually know anything about animal
behavior, you know that animals have several different levels of alarm and
many different behaviors in response, depending on the threat.

As a professional photographer who photographs wildlife, I can tell you that
some degree of "disturbance" occurs whenever I'm in the field shooting. How
much depends on the animal. For example, the other day I sat quietly on a
log while a whitetail herd browsed around me. But they absolutely knew I was
there, and if I moved, they had alarm responses, ranging from simple
attention and holding still to fleeing, depending on the animal.

As a bow-hunter, I'm perfectly aware of how extremely difficult it is to
truly conceal your presence from deer, bear and elk, and even doing so
successfully *still* results in impacts on *other* creatures.


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.

Even if true, you are *still having an impact* on the wildlife. One of the
gravest dangers to wildlife is "habituation" to humans. It usually results
in the animal getting killed as a result of human activity. Bears get shot
for raiding garbage cans, deer get run over on the highway, cougars
habituate to eating dogs, and end up shot dead.

So, even though you *think* you're not having an impact, you are.


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.

Again, you're generalizing.


Based on my experience in the rivers where I paddle, your assertion
that kayakers are disruptive to eagles is almost absurd.

Not here. On my place it's entirely factual, because I've observed it
happening.

The exception
would be if there are very large numbers of paddlers constantly on the
river, which is also absurd to imagine.

Absurd to imagine? Hardly. Why do you think that river managers on popular
waterways often seek limits on kayaking?




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.

Utter hogwash.

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.

Have they? Or, perhaps they established the nest there in the fall and the
disturbance didn't occur until spring and summer.

It's the oddball behavior of the human
who thinks he's the landowner they have to worry about.

Oh great, I'm corresponding with a Gaia-nut....

Sorry, I've got a land-grant from Congress and a state title that says it's
mine.




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.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the particular eagle.





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.

Well, except that there is NO RIGHT OF WAY through my private property, and
I've got the cases which prove it. But even if you're right, so what? What's
wrong with using a perfectly legitimate law to prevent a perfectly
illegitimate trespass?

You have
also expressed disdain for the protective statute because it impinges
on your rights as a property owner.

No, I've expressed ire at the fact that I'm not being compensated for the
taking. I like the eagles. I like having them here. I want them to remain
here. But if I'm going to be divested of my constitutional right to use and
enjoy my property, I expect to be paid for it.

In this matter you have shown
motive that you wish the nesting eagles be disturbed in the event of a
passing kayak.

Not at all. I want to prevent their being disturbed. But if they *are*
disturbed, I also want to be sure those culpable pay the price of doing so,
as an example to others who might likewise choose to disregard the law.

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?

Whatever length is required and lawful. That might include, for example,
making a cooperative agreement with state and/or federal authorities that
*they* will collect, monitor and retain the video data, in a secure manner,
while I simply provide the system and maintenance. That has yet to be worked
out.

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?

A conundrum indeed. But that's not my problem, that's a problem for the
defense. All I have to do is prove the disturbance happened, and that it's
beyond a reasonable doubt that the boaters are guilty of causing the
disturbance. Beyond that it's up to the court to determine the probative
value of the evidence.

In this case federal statute forbids the
gathering of evidence.

How so? The statute no more forbids inspection of the system than it forbids
taking video of eagle nests. The video equipment is located far enough away
from the nest, and is very well disguised, so as not to cause any more
disturbance than, for example, passive telescopic observation of the nest by
volunteer wildlife monitors supervised by the city Open Space department.

The case is dismissed.

Not true. The defense can call witnesses, retain experts and even seek
access to the camera system to verify the integrity of the evidence, all
without disturbing the eagles. The system is being configured specifically
to avoid such challenges.

It's not up to the prosecution to prove that the evidence has not been
tampered with, it's up to the defense to prove that it has, which they're
welcome to try to do.

Oh, and when were you appointed to your federal judgeship?

P.S. Again I note the extreme lengths you'll go to rationalize your harmful
conduct.

--
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 Andy Baxter wrote:


Is this how it goes?

ŠAfter 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.

That's the beauty of digital. The system automatically detects the boaters
and starts the cameras. I can even set it up to call my cell phone when it's
activated, and I can download video clips to my cell phone to make sure it's
not a false alarm. It's very cool. Then, I make some calls and proceed to
95th street with my handicam to catch them taking out and record license
plates and suchlike in case the Sheriff can't get there in time.

I won't catch everyone, but one or two prosecutions ought to get the word
out.


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.

Well, there's always hope...but I'd prefer Charlize, Paris is too much of a
flake.
--
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 Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

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

Have a nice trip, write if you get work.
--
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 Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

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...

Oh, I paid for it alright. Who do you thing did the farm work for 40 years?
That would be me.

Besides, what does it matter in the first place? It doesn't, you're just
engaging in yet more of that ad hominem attack you're famous for because you
can't come up with a logical, rational, supportable argument to refute me.

Lame, Travesty, lame.
--
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:
: A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

: 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...

: Oh, I paid for it alright. Who do you thing did the farm work for 40 years?
: That would be me.

You inherited the property...

: Besides, what does it matter in the first place? It doesn't, you're just
: engaging in yet more of that ad hominem attack you're famous for because you
: can't come up with a logical, rational, supportable argument to refute me.

I don't need to... I still believe in the following statement...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...b520813d0b5cca

No state can enact a law that limits the Federal Governments ability to create
treaties with foreign nations... I think it's just a matter of time before
someone goes to court with a good lawyer and lots of research behind them...

--
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:
: : 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

: Have a nice trip, write if you get work.

Oh, don't worry Scottie... like most Americans, I have a job, I have a
mortgage...

At the end of the week... I have what I have because I earned it, not
because my mommie bought it and left it to me.... maybe that's why I
don't get upset if some kid walks cross the lawn...

--
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:


Well, there's always hope...but I'd prefer Charlize, Paris is too much of a
flake.
--
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:

We agree on this one I just told my wife the other night that I thought
Charlize was the best looking woman in Hollywood. She agreed. That makes three
of us!

Blakely

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
: A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

: 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...

: Oh, I paid for it alright. Who do you thing did the farm work for 40 years?
: That would be me.

You inherited the property...

So what? Are you one of those socialist swine who believes that property
should be forfeited to the government on death? You sound like one.

: Besides, what does it matter in the first place? It doesn't, you're just
: engaging in yet more of that ad hominem attack you're famous for because you
: can't come up with a logical, rational, supportable argument to refute me.

I don't need to...

You can't.

I still believe in the following statement...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e4fbee3f2d294f
81/2fb520813d0b5cca?lnk=st&q=carrying+places+group%3A rec.boats.*+author%3Ajwn%40
ripco.com&rnum=2&hl=en#2fb520813d0b5cca

You're still wrong, and so is Chris. Boulder Creek is not a navigable water
of the United States, and Congress recognized that fact when it severed the
land from the public domain and titled it privately.


No state can enact a law that limits the Federal Governments ability to create
treaties with foreign nations...

Except that the treaty you allude to does not apply to Boulder Creek.

I think it's just a matter of time before
someone goes to court with a good lawyer and lots of research behind them...

You'd be right.

However, your navigability complaint has nothing whatever to do with the
issue here, which is the fact that you cannot formulate a cogent argument to
refute the issue of EAGLE NESTS and kayakers, which is what we're talking
about right now.

--
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 Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
: A Usenet persona calling itself Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

: 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

: Have a nice trip, write if you get work.

Oh, don't worry Scottie... like most Americans, I have a job, I have a
mortgage...

At the end of the week... I have what I have because I earned it, not
because my mommie bought it and left it to me....

And somehow you think that inheritance is "free" in this country? How does
that explain the nearly $250,00 in estate taxes that my brother and I have
to pay out of our own pockets?

maybe that's why I
don't get upset if some kid walks cross the lawn...

You're free to get upset, build a fence or not, as you please. So am I. Your
right to object or not is no greater or less than mine. I simply choose
differently, as you could, and I suspect would if the "some kid" was a gang
of teenage nere-do-wells hopping your back fence to hold a pot and beer
party in your backyard while you're trying to sleep.
--
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