" wrote in
oups.com:

I've been looking at various references to the Bald Eagle Protection
Act, and the only part of it that seems remotely relevant is the word
"disturb" in the phrase '"take" includes also pursue, shoot, shoot
at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb'. In
other words, paddling a kayak or canoe 50 yards away from a bald eagle
nest isn't remotely illegal.

That depends on the particular site. There's a spot a bit north of here
that I've paddled numerous times that has a pair of nesting eagles. I've
been there a couple of times when the section of water it's on is closed,
presumably because the DEC has determined that boat traffic in the area.
I've seen sections of beach closed off along the Atlantic coast when sea
turtles are nesting and have laid eggs. In other words, padding a kayak or
canoe 50 yards away from a bald nest *may* be illegal if the local agency
(i.e. DEC, Fish & Game) has deemed that the area needs to be protected.

Which is certainly good, otherwise the residents and vacationers at
Kiawah Island, SC could not get to their homes, as there is a
longstanding bald eagle nest about 50 FEET from the only road into the
island. Having watched that eagle ignore long lines of motor traffic,
it's pretty clear that kayaking 50 YARDS from an eagle is not
intrusive.

A couple of years ago I paddled a section of the upper Delaware river and
saw a dozen eagles over a couple of days. I'm sure that pales in
comparision to British Columbia or Alaska so eagle nests in those locations
are likely not going to be protected, whereas a pair of eagles nesting in an
area which *doesn't* have a large population might be.

Nice try, though, Scott. How much is the camera costing you?


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

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.

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

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

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

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 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

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