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