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

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

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