Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Please take note that the creek passes within 50 YARDS of the eagle nest,
and that floating through the property is now not only illegal under
Colorado law, but under federal law as well. Specifically, the Bald Eagle
Protection Act, 16 USC §§ 668-668d.

A high-resolution digital video surveillance and recording system that will
allow law-enforcement agents to identify individual trespassers, which
includes a motion-detecting system and time-coded nest surveillance camera
is being installed. Violators will be referred to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for prosecution should they harass, molest or disturb the eagles.

Your best plan of action is not to trespass through the property.

Altnews

Uncle Sam Stole My Land

By Scott Weiser

In an editorial in The Denver Post on November 6, 2005, former chief of the
U.S. Forest Service Mike Dombeck and Berkely Conservation Institute director
Jim Martin object to a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act that¹s working
it¹s way through Congress. While they make some valid points, their hyperbolic
argument against compensating landowners when ESA regulations diminish (or
more usually extinguish) their property rights flies in the face of
fundamental fairness and the Constitution. They falsely claim that requiring
government to pay for preserving critical habitat will lead to ³landowners who
want to pollute our air or water demand[ing] to be compensated by the
taxpayers if regulations stop them.² This is nonsensical fear mongering, and
they know it.

There is a significant difference between a landowner asking to be paid when
the government seizes his property for use as public habitat for endangered
species and a polluter exporting harm to the public.

The call for just compensation for forcible habitat seizure by government
regulation is firmly based in the constitutional principle that a private
individual should not be forced to bear the entire economic burden for a
regulation of property rights that in all fairness ought to be borne by the
public as a whole. But that is precisely what the ESA as done since it was
enacted. The entire burden of protecting privately-owned endangered species
habitat has been dumped on those who are the least responsible for the plight
of endangered species‹rural landowners who have voluntarily preserved habitat.
At the same time, the ESA absolves those who are truly responsible for the
loss of habitat‹the seething public masses who demand more suburban homes and
shopping malls‹of any financial or legal responsibility. That amounts to
nothing more than the political and economic enslavement of the few for the
comfort and convenience of the many.

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
what was once ³critical habitat² for some creature, I am one of the remaining
few who are not responsible for the plight of endangered species, because we
have preserved what others have not, and I¹ve done so willingly and
joyfully‹until now.

Last spring things changed when an employee of the City of Boulder Open Space
and Mountain Parks department who runs their eagle surveillance program
notified me that one of their eagle spotters, who regularly monitor eagle
nests in Boulder County during nesting season, saw some tire tracks in the
snow under the ³eagle tree.² These tracks were the result of our routine
ranching and livestock management activities we¹ve been doing for more than 40
years. While the ranger was very polite, her message was crystal clear: If I,
or anyone working for me, gets caught harassing the nesting eagles, which she
correctly says the law defines as any activity that causes an eagle to ³flush
from the nest,² we could be arrested, jailed, and fined tens of thousands of
dollars under the federal Eagle Protection Act. Given the fact that they ³spy²
on us regularly, this threat is particularly real. To connect my experience
directly to the ESA, although the eagles have been de-listed, precisely the
same kind of restrictions applies to endangered species and their habitat.

This instantly turned the eagles from welcome guests into legal and financial
liabilities. It had the practical effect of seizing and turning over to the
government a 500 yard diameter circle centered on the nest. That amounts to
about 41 acres I cannot enter without risking arrest and prosecution, not even
to fix fences, fight fires, chase trespassers or tend livestock. I have been
ejected from my land by the government, which is putting it to use as habitat
for a species protected at the behest of and for the benefit of the public.
It¹s not a seizure for a fire station or a public park, which always requires
compensation, but the effect is exactly the same. The public gets total
dominion and control over my land when the eagles are nesting, and I am
forbidden from using or enjoying it, even to the extent of walking through it,
which is my constitutional right. Neither can I simply cut down the trees or
destroy the nest when the eagles aren¹t actively nesting to relieve myself of
this burden, because that too is a crime, as is destroying endangered species
habitat to make the species unwelcome. How does this not equate to a physical,
government-initiated seizure and occupation of my land on a par with building
a highway or putting in an MX missile silo?

How then would I be engaged in a ³greedy scheme,² as Martin and Dombeck
falsely claim, by demanding that the public pay for the land they¹ve taken
dominion and control of? Why shouldn¹t the public have to share in the
economic burden of protecting the eagles or other endangered species?
Obviously, the public should, but current federal laws, including the ESA,
don¹t force them to, and Dombeck and Martin like it that way. So as it stands
we, the ³Habitat Slaves of the ESA² are forced to both sacrifice our
constitutional rights and maintain the habitat at our own expense, under the
threat of fines and imprisonment. How can anyone think that¹s fair?

This precise scenario has been played out many thousands of times throughout
the country since the ESA was enacted in 1973, with many thousands of
blameless rural landowners as the victims. Landowners have been prosecuted for
simple things like plowing their farmland or cutting brush around their houses
to help prevent devastating wildfires. And it¹s done in the name of protecting
species the public places enormous value upon, but without the public as a
whole supporting that preservation.

That¹s the grievance that Rep. Pombo¹s bill seeks to redress. It simply, and
fairly, calls upon the public accept the financial burden of preserving
endangered species and their habitat, and to spread the cost of doing so among
all the people, not place an unfair, ruinous and unconstitutional economic
burden on individuals who happen to own something the public covets‹critical
wildlife habitat.

© 2005
Altnews

This is a copyrighted article from Altnews, and is available for republishing
on a one-time, non-exclusive basis for a fee of $20.00 U.S. Please remit the
publishing fee to:

Altnews
P.O. Box 20507
Boulder, CO 80308

Direct questions or comments to:

Altnews is a division of Windhover Creative Partners LLC.


All the best and happy paddling...somewhere else.
--
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 high-resolution digital video surveillance and recording system that will
allow law-enforcement agents to identify individual trespassers, which
includes a motion-detecting system and time-coded nest surveillance camera
is being installed.

Hi, Scott. Which law-enforcement agency is installing this system?


Todd.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Hi Scott! :-)

I still wonder, who would *want* to paddle on Boulder Creek east of 75th street?
When I paddled Boulder Creek, I think the takeout was at 39th street. Is there any
whitewater between 39th and 75th, moreover any WW east of 75th? ;-)

One of the weirdest WW runs ever! Putting in either at Eben G. Fine park or up a
little higher as the road goes up into the mountains, paddling though the park and
then behind a bunch of urban/suburban back yards, and taking out below a municipal
office park parking lot! (Where Jose Muldoon's paddler friendly pub used to be!) I
remember we spread our paddling gear all over the nicely mowed office park grassy
areas, but Jose Muldoon's power was out, so we despondently put all our now dry
paddling gear into bags and loaded it up, preparing to go find a place to get a beer
and a bite, and by the time we did the power was back on, and we had a nice beer and
a bite at Jose Muldoon's! :-)

Fun though! Just lousy scenery (except for those two cute girls in a backyard that
we got to meet!! :-) )

John Kuthe...

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

I'm simply too lazy to review the whole thing but wondering.....is it only
in CO? I see alot of Eagles on my local streams in PA. We have nesting pairs
all over that bird watchers, or anyone can get pretty close to.
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Please take note that the creek passes within 50 YARDS of the eagle nest,
and that floating through the property is now not only illegal under
Colorado law, but under federal law as well. Specifically, the Bald Eagle
Protection Act, 16 USC §§ 668-668d.

A high-resolution digital video surveillance and recording system that
will
allow law-enforcement agents to identify individual trespassers, which
includes a motion-detecting system and time-coded nest surveillance camera
is being installed. Violators will be referred to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for prosecution should they harass, molest or disturb the eagles.

Your best plan of action is not to trespass through the property.

Altnews

Uncle Sam Stole My Land

By Scott Weiser

In an editorial in The Denver Post on November 6, 2005, former chief of
the
U.S. Forest Service Mike Dombeck and Berkely Conservation Institute
director
Jim Martin object to a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act that¹s
working
it¹s way through Congress. While they make some valid points, their
hyperbolic
argument against compensating landowners when ESA regulations diminish
(or
more usually extinguish) their property rights flies in the face of
fundamental fairness and the Constitution. They falsely claim that
requiring
government to pay for preserving critical habitat will lead to
³landowners who
want to pollute our air or water demand[ing] to be compensated by the
taxpayers if regulations stop them.² This is nonsensical fear mongering,
and
they know it.

There is a significant difference between a landowner asking to be paid
when
the government seizes his property for use as public habitat for
endangered
species and a polluter exporting harm to the public.

The call for just compensation for forcible habitat seizure by
government
regulation is firmly based in the constitutional principle that a
private
individual should not be forced to bear the entire economic burden for a
regulation of property rights that in all fairness ought to be borne by
the
public as a whole. But that is precisely what the ESA as done since it
was
enacted. The entire burden of protecting privately-owned endangered
species
habitat has been dumped on those who are the least responsible for the
plight
of endangered species At the same time, the ESA absolves those who
are truly responsible for the
loss of habitat shopping malls nothing more than the political
and economic enslavement of the few for the
comfort and convenience of the many.

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
what was once ³critical habitat² for some creature, I am one of the
remaining
few who are not responsible for the plight of endangered species,
because we
have preserved what others have not, and I¹ve done so willingly and
joyfully
Last spring things changed when an employee of the City of Boulder Open
Space
and Mountain Parks department who runs their eagle surveillance program
notified me that one of their eagle spotters, who regularly monitor
eagle
nests in Boulder County during nesting season, saw some tire tracks in
the
snow under the ³eagle tree.² These tracks were the result of our routine
ranching and livestock management activities we¹ve been doing for more
than 40
years. While the ranger was very polite, her message was crystal clear:
If I,
or anyone working for me, gets caught harassing the nesting eagles,
which she
correctly says the law defines as any activity that causes an eagle to
³flush
from the nest,² we could be arrested, jailed, and fined tens of
thousands of
dollars under the federal Eagle Protection Act. Given the fact that they
³spy²
on us regularly, this threat is particularly real. To connect my
experience
directly to the ESA, although the eagles have been de-listed, precisely
the
same kind of restrictions applies to endangered species and their
habitat.

This instantly turned the eagles from welcome guests into legal and
financial
liabilities. It had the practical effect of seizing and turning over to
the
government a 500 yard diameter circle centered on the nest. That
amounts to
about 41 acres I cannot enter without risking arrest and prosecution,
not even
to fix fences, fight fires, chase trespassers or tend livestock. I have
been
ejected from my land by the government, which is putting it to use as
habitat
for a species protected at the behest of and for the benefit of the
public.
It¹s not a seizure for a fire station or a public park, which always
requires
compensation, but the effect is exactly the same. The public gets total
dominion and control over my land when the eagles are nesting, and I am
forbidden from using or enjoying it, even to the extent of walking
through it,
which is my constitutional right. Neither can I simply cut down the
trees or
destroy the nest when the eagles aren¹t actively nesting to relieve
myself of
this burden, because that too is a crime, as is destroying endangered
species
habitat to make the species unwelcome. How does this not equate to a
physical,
government-initiated seizure and occupation of my land on a par with
building
a highway or putting in an MX missile silo?

How then would I be engaged in a ³greedy scheme,² as Martin and Dombeck
falsely claim, by demanding that the public pay for the land they¹ve
taken
dominion and control of? Why shouldn¹t the public have to share in the
economic burden of protecting the eagles or other endangered species?
Obviously, the public should, but current federal laws, including the
ESA,
don¹t force them to, and Dombeck and Martin like it that way. So as it
stands
we, the ³Habitat Slaves of the ESA² are forced to both sacrifice our
constitutional rights and maintain the habitat at our own expense, under
the
threat of fines and imprisonment. How can anyone think that¹s fair?

This precise scenario has been played out many thousands of times
throughout
the country since the ESA was enacted in 1973, with many thousands of
blameless rural landowners as the victims. Landowners have been
prosecuted for
simple things like plowing their farmland or cutting brush around their
houses
to help prevent devastating wildfires. And it¹s done in the name of
protecting
species the public places enormous value upon, but without the public as
a
whole supporting that preservation.

That¹s the grievance that Rep. Pombo¹s bill seeks to redress. It simply,
and
fairly, calls upon the public accept the financial burden of preserving
endangered species and their habitat, and to spread the cost of doing so
among
all the people, not place an unfair, ruinous and unconstitutional
economic
burden on individuals who happen to own something the public covets
wildlife habitat.

© 2005
Altnews

This is a copyrighted article from Altnews, and is available for
republishing
on a one-time, non-exclusive basis for a fee of $20.00 U.S. Please remit
the
publishing fee to:

Altnews
P.O. Box 20507
Boulder, CO 80308

Direct questions or comments to:

Altnews is a division of Windhover Creative Partners LLC.


All the best and happy paddling...somewhere else.
--
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
 

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?
For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

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.

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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================


Scott Whiner typed:

Uncle Sam Stole My Land

By Scott Weiser

In an editorial in The Denver Post on November 6, 2005, former chief ofthe
U.S. Forest Service Mike Dombeck and Berkely Conservation Institute director
Jim Martin object to a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act that¹s working
it¹s way through Congress. While they make some valid points, their hyperbolic
argument against compensating landowners when ESA regulations diminish (or
more usually extinguish) their property rights flies in the face of
fundamental fairness and the Constitution. They falsely claim that requiring
government to pay for preserving critical habitat will lead to ³landowners who
want to pollute our air or water demand[ing] to be compensated by the
taxpayers if regulations stop them.² This is nonsensical fear mongering, and
they know it.

There is a significant difference between a landowner asking to be paidwhen
the government seizes his property for use as public habitat for endangered
species and a polluter exporting harm to the public.

The call for just compensation for forcible habitat seizure by government
regulation is firmly based in the constitutional principle that a private
individual should not be forced to bear the entire economic burden for a
regulation of property rights that in all fairness ought to be borne bythe
public as a whole. But that is precisely what the ESA as done since it was
enacted. The entire burden of protecting privately-owned endangered species
habitat has been dumped on those who are the least responsible for the plight
of endangered species‹rural landowners who have voluntarily preservedhabitat.
At the same time, the ESA absolves those who are truly responsible for the
loss of habitat‹the seething public masses who demand more suburban homes and
shopping malls‹of any financial or legal responsibility. That amountsto
nothing more than the political and economic enslavement of the few forthe
comfort and convenience of the many.

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
what was once ³critical habitat² for some creature, I am one of theremaining
few who are not responsible for the plight of endangered species, because we
have preserved what others have not, and I¹ve done so willingly and
joyfully‹until now.

Last spring things changed when an employee of the City of Boulder OpenSpace
and Mountain Parks department who runs their eagle surveillance program
notified me that one of their eagle spotters, who regularly monitor eagle
nests in Boulder County during nesting season, saw some tire tracks in the
snow under the ³eagle tree.² These tracks were the result of our routine
ranching and livestock management activities we¹ve been doing for more than 40
years. While the ranger was very polite, her message was crystal clear:If I,
or anyone working for me, gets caught harassing the nesting eagles, which she
correctly says the law defines as any activity that causes an eagle to ³flush
from the nest,² we could be arrested, jailed, and fined tens of thousands of
dollars under the federal Eagle Protection Act. Given the fact that they ³spy²
on us regularly, this threat is particularly real. To connect my experience
directly to the ESA, although the eagles have been de-listed, preciselythe
same kind of restrictions applies to endangered species and their habitat.

This instantly turned the eagles from welcome guests into legal and financial
liabilities. It had the practical effect of seizing and turning over tothe
government a 500 yard diameter circle centered on the nest. That amounts to
about 41 acres I cannot enter without risking arrest and prosecution, not even
to fix fences, fight fires, chase trespassers or tend livestock. I have been
ejected from my land by the government, which is putting it to use as habitat
for a species protected at the behest of and for the benefit of the public.
It¹s not a seizure for a fire station or a public park, which always requires
compensation, but the effect is exactly the same. The public gets total
dominion and control over my land when the eagles are nesting, and I am
forbidden from using or enjoying it, even to the extent of walking through it,
which is my constitutional right. Neither can I simply cut down the trees or
destroy the nest when the eagles aren¹t actively nesting to relieve myself of
this burden, because that too is a crime, as is destroying endangered species
habitat to make the species unwelcome. How does this not equate to a physical,
government-initiated seizure and occupation of my land on a par with building
a highway or putting in an MX missile silo?

How then would I be engaged in a ³greedy scheme,² as Martin and Dombeck
falsely claim, by demanding that the public pay for the land they¹ve taken
dominion and control of? Why shouldn¹t the public have to share in the
economic burden of protecting the eagles or other endangered species?
Obviously, the public should, but current federal laws, including the ESA,
don¹t force them to, and Dombeck and Martin like it that way. So as it stands
we, the ³Habitat Slaves of the ESA² are forced to both sacrifice our
constitutional rights and maintain the habitat at our own expense, under the
threat of fines and imprisonment. How can anyone think that¹s fair?

This precise scenario has been played out many thousands of times throughout
the country since the ESA was enacted in 1973, with many thousands of
blameless rural landowners as the victims. Landowners have been prosecuted for
simple things like plowing their farmland or cutting brush around theirhouses
to help prevent devastating wildfires. And it¹s done in the name of protecting
species the public places enormous value upon, but without the public as a
whole supporting that preservation.

That¹s the grievance that Rep. Pombo¹s bill seeks to redress. It simply, and
fairly, calls upon the public accept the financial burden of preserving
endangered species and their habitat, and to spread the cost of doing so among
all the people, not place an unfair, ruinous and unconstitutional economic
burden on individuals who happen to own something the public covets‹critical
wildlife habitat.

© 2005
Altnews

This is a copyrighted article from Altnews, and is available for republishing
on a one-time, non-exclusive basis for a fee of $20.00 U.S. Please remit the
publishing fee to:

Altnews
P.O. Box 20507
Boulder, CO 80308

Direct questions or comments to:

Altnews is a division of Windhover Creative Partners LLC.


All the best and happy paddling...somewhere else.
--
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 Todd Bradley wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
A high-resolution digital video surveillance and recording system that will
allow law-enforcement agents to identify individual trespassers, which
includes a motion-detecting system and time-coded nest surveillance camera
is being installed.

Hi, Scott. Which law-enforcement agency is installing this system?


Todd.

Does it matter?

--
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 John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Hi Scott! :-)

I still wonder, who would *want* to paddle on Boulder Creek east of 75th
street?
When I paddled Boulder Creek, I think the takeout was at 39th street. Is there
any
whitewater between 39th and 75th, moreover any WW east of 75th? ;-)

This is the same question I've been asking myself lo these many years.
Evidently, people like to experience the natural area and see the cliffs,
and floating through is the lazy way of doing so. I can't say I blame them
for wanting to see the area, curiosity is natural thing. However, just
because they want to see the place doesn¹t mean they have any right to do so
without my permission.



One of the weirdest WW runs ever! Putting in either at Eben G. Fine park or up
a
little higher as the road goes up into the mountains, paddling though the park
and
then behind a bunch of urban/suburban back yards, and taking out below a
municipal
office park parking lot! (Where Jose Muldoon's paddler friendly pub used to
be!) I
remember we spread our paddling gear all over the nicely mowed office park
grassy
areas, but Jose Muldoon's power was out, so we despondently put all our now
dry
paddling gear into bags and loaded it up, preparing to go find a place to get
a beer
and a bite, and by the time we did the power was back on, and we had a nice
beer and
a bite at Jose Muldoon's! :-)

Fun though! Just lousy scenery (except for those two cute girls in a backyard
that

Well, I'm somewhat further east... But your point remains. No whitewater at
all.

we got to meet!! :-) )

Someday soon, I hope.
--
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:

I'm simply too lazy to review the whole thing but wondering.....is it only
in CO? I see alot of Eagles on my local streams in PA. We have nesting pairs
all over that bird watchers, or anyone can get pretty close to.

Yes, it is. The federal law is nationwide. Any time you do anything that
flushes a nesting eagle from a nest you chance being prosecuted under the
Act.
--
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 wrote:

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?

Um...Boulder Creek is NOT a "navigable water way."

But even if it were the Bald Eagle Protection Act would still apply, and
anyone harassing, molesting or disturbing nesting eagles risks prosecution.
That includes kayakers.

For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Not really. Just because you can float a kayak on a particular creek doesn't
mean it's available for that purpose, as a rather large and extensive body
of law clearly demonstrates.
--
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 wrote:

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.

It's a violation of the act if the activity flushes the eagle from the nest,
which falls under the "molest or disturb" definitions of the law. According
to the USFWS, flushing eagles from their nests has the potential to destroy
eggs, which are eagles under the law, or cause the eagles to abandon the
nest entirely. That certainly qualifies as "molest or disturb," and I agree
with the ranger's analysis of the law.

According to the ranger who spoke to me, eagles are particularly susceptible
to abandoning eggs because the "energy input" is small. They are less likely
to abandon chicks not yet fledged, but the risk is still there.

Whether paddling a kayak will, in any particular circumstance, cause an
eagle to flush from the nest is an open question, but my experience here on
Boulder Creek is that it has done so in the past. My intent is to document
any intrusions in such a way as to provide proof positive that the intrusion
violated the law.


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.

Eagles may habituate to human presence, but it depends entirely on the
particular circumstances involved. If, in the case you mention, the eagles
established the nest near the road, and are not disturbed by moving vehicles
passing by, then the occupants are not violating the law. But if people stop
their cars, and get out, and crowd around taking pictures, which causes the
eagles to flush from the nest, then they HAVE violated the law.

In general, eagles are less likely to view vehicles as a threat, so they are
less likely to flush in the presence of a vehicle, particularly if the
vehicle (or vehicles) are ubiquitous and don't stop adjacent to the nest.
But human beings are an entirely different proposition, especially when they
are outside of a vehicle or are making noise, including talking.

It also depends on the particular eagles. If, as in my case, the eagles are
accustomed only to extremely limited human activity more than 250 yards from
the nest, this does not mean that they will likewise tolerate human
intrusion 50 yards from the nest, even if you're in a kayak. The law is
clear and unequivocal: it is up to the individual to make absolutely sure
that he does not cause an eagle to flush from the nest, irrespective of the
actual distance from the nest, be it 50 yards, 250 yards or a mile. The City
of Boulder wildfire teams cancelled a prescribed agricultural burn on city
property more than half a mile west of the nest because the wind that day
MIGHT have blown the smoke to the nest. I told them I seriously doubted that
even if it did, that the eagles would be disturbed, but they didn't want to
take any chances of either disturbing the nest or violating the law.

I think it's ill-advised of you to generalize about all eagles based on one
particular group of eagles. It's also very risky for people to take your
advice, since it is they who will be prosecuted, not you, should your advice
be wrong.

I highly recommend that paddlers review the law, and the cases, themselves,
and judge for themselves whether it's worth the risk of a federal felony
prosecution just to float through my property.

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

A bundle. But, the navigability debate aside, I figure if I'm not allowed to
use more than 40 acres of my own property because eagles are using it,
neither should inner-tubers or kayakers.

And if I'm at risk of being prosecuted for so much as setting foot on my own
property too close to an eagle's nest, then I'm certainly going to do
everything I can to ensure that anybody else who illegally uses my property
faces the same risks. That's why I'm installing the cameras, and that's why
I'll refer anyone who disturbs the eagles for prosecution.

I also find it interesting how hard you're trying to dismiss this issue just
to serve your own selfish, pleasure-based motives. It's my experience that
most kayakers claim to be responsible, eco-sensitive people who have no
interest in causing any environmental harm through their sport. You,
however, are trying to pettifog your way out of a perfectly valid and
reasonable restriction of your so-called "right to float" that's intended to
protect a sensitive and important species.

Evidently it's more important to you that you get to do whatever the hell
you like than it is to respect nature and protect threatened species.

How shallow and selfish of you.
--
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 Noone wrote:

wrote:

Granted throwing rocks into an eagles nest would be rotten but does
anyone else fing the blockage of what must be a navigable water way a
little disturbing?
For a country priding itself and based on freedome this seems a little
,,, well, off.

Well, the eagles can't be too sensitive. We have a Bald Eagle nest here
in Minnesota just north of where Rice Creek is crossed by Interstate 35W.
On many an occasion I have seen little heads poking up. Guess the drone
of traffic and poor quality of roadside air does not bother them.

As I said in my reply to cramersec, it depends entirely on the specific
circumstances and the specific eagles involved. I can tell you with
certainty that coming within 200 yards of the eagles nesting on my property
will cause them to flush.

Then again, I've seen one of the eagles sitting on top of my dump truck in
my equipment yard not 50 yards from my house, waiting for one of the ten
rabbits hiding UNDER the dump truck to make a mistake. Of course, my dump
truck wasn't the nest, either. It's nearly half a mile away from my house.

It's risky to make assumptions about particular eagles of your experience
and try to extrapolate about what's acceptable behavior in every case.
Certainly CO paddlers CAN choose to take their chances and float past the
nest, and indeed they have done so in the past. Most of them probably didn't
even know the eagle nest was there, and had absolutely no idea they were
violating the law. It's also absolutely true that floaters have violated the
law, because I've watched it happen. Until now I've been unable to document
such intrusions.

But the stakes have been raised, and I'm taking the high-tech solution to
tip the odds in favor of the eagles by setting up a system that will
photographically and indisputably document such activities for prosecution.
Before, you might get away with it because nobody was around to see it or
you could claim ignorance. That's going to end. In addition to the cameras,
I'm installing several prominent warning signs advising floaters of the
exclusion area ahead. That way if they ignore the warnings, they can't claim
they didn't know. And if they ignore the first sign, posted at the upstream
boundary of my property (not to mention the numerous open space closure
signs along the way), and then decide to stop when they reach the second and
final warning sign at the 250 yard limit and walk out, I'll prosecute them
for trespass.

If they proceed, I'll have them picked up at 95th street by the Sheriff and
held for a USFWS agent.

As for the navigable thing, remember that Colorado elected a different
basis regarding water rights than did most of the rest of US. There has
been much dialogue here in years past on that very subject. You can poke
another stick into *that* hornet's nest if you want, but I don't think you
will have too large an audience.

Well, that's the one saving grace of the eagles. When they moved their nest
next to the creek last year, they started a whole new ball game and gave me
a potent weapon to prevent trespass by floaters that is extremely hard to
argue with. The navigability argument is still on the table, of course, and
is proceeding to its conclusion in due course, but the eagles place the
entire weight of the federal government squarely on my side, which is the
only silver lining to the fact that at the same time, my property has been
seized by the feds.

At least I get to use the eagles to keep the kayakers out. Not much in the
way of "just compensation," but it'll do for now.

As for Freedom in general, you don't have to go back very far to
recognize the erosion that has occurred. But along with Freedom, go
rights and responsibility. We all carry our own sense of Freedom with us
everyday. Not many of us understand the rights of the other
stakeholders. If we did, then we would have fewer encounters with the
law. And if it was easy to do so, we all would spend less time in courts
sorting it out. Like most things, the real truth lies well below the
surface.

Below the surface indeed. My intent in starting this thread was to bring
this issue to the surface. There's new "stakeholders" in the game, and all
arguments about navigability aside, this issue trumps the "I can paddle
wherever I want" argument. Here is where we get to see if paddlers are
really eco-friendly, sensitive, responsible citizens willing to sacrifice
their own personal pleasure in order to help conserve a protected species,
or whether they are simply selfish, uncaring pleasure-hounds who care for
nothing but their own small-minded agenda.

It should be obvious to even a child that you are not "free" to do just
exactly whatever you want, whenever you want to do it. Our nation is founded
on the principle of "ordered liberty," not anarchy.

Time to step up to the bar and demonstrate that you are reasonable
people...or not.

In any event, those who choose to float down Boulder Creek through my
property do so at substantial risk. Fair warning has been given.

--
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 Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

See, there's that small-minded, petty selfishness I was talking about...

--
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
 

Back again claiming the river for himself and hiding behind a pair of
eagles this time. We have lots of eagle nests around our cottage in
northern ontario that people boat around all the timw. I find it quite
a stretch to claim that eagles are disturbed by boaters. Of course you
must have very different eagles than what I'm used to if they're
nesting in colorado in november.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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?

I thought you and the boulder creek property split in 2002?

--
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:
Hi, Scott. Which law-enforcement agency is installing this system?
Does it matter?

I was just curious. Geez, are you going out of your way to avoid civil
conversation on this?

Anyhow, I read from your other posts that no law-enforcement agency is
installing them; it's your own private surveillance system. So you
answered my question already.


Todd.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Hi Scott, I see you are still tiltin" at windmills! Sounds like you are up
against the ESA on one hand, and the paddlers on the other! I myself am
more than willing to paddle somewhere else than on that stretch of the
river, but I assume from your continuing comments that there are some that
continue to hassle you and your eagles! I can only apologize for them, the
eagles I mean! It would seem though that the eagles are the best thing that
could have happened to you to abate the paddler problem. The paddlers are
accountable to the ESA rangers. How do you complain about that? Have you
found that the rangers actually stopped the paddling conflict? I've found
that there is lots of other water to paddle, where I don't have to worry
about grumpy old land owners!

Of course you lose use of the land, but I wonder how many head of cattle
that 41 acres represents? You can still enjoy the view, which I am sure
would be nice just as a conservancy. Could you not donate the land to a
conservancy group, and take a good tax right off, and still have the view?
I know that this is difficult when you are fourth generation, but sometimes
it is better to bend than to break. My family lost ranch land to the US
Military for air bases during each of the last two WW's, and we got very
little from them in return, and didn't get any sort of view either, but
then that was war time, and we all had to make sacrifices! I understand
that we are at war now, so I suppose that may have something to do with
your present ongoing situation!

I wondered what happened to you after all the discussions last Spring, I
got busy during the Summer, and I lost track of the previous conversation,
but it sounds like you are ready for the new cabin fever season! Let the
games begin!

We never kept our lunch appt. so that may still be in the works, if you are
up to it! I realize that prospect may still disturb some of my other
friends here on the RBP, but they should rest easy. I would point out that
I have changed my Nom-de-Plume, having spent the Summer mellowing out. I
might even be protected under that ESA regs! RkyMtnHootOwl 0v0

Life is about each moment of breath,
Living, about each breathless moment!

Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT

and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0


2 WW kayaks,
'73 Folbot Super,
pre '60 Klepper AEII
77 Hobie Cat 16

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself Drew Dalgleish wrote:

Back again claiming the river for himself and hiding behind a pair of
eagles this time.

Yeah, well, it is my river, so I don't see a problem with that, and if the
eagles provide me with a way to keep trespassers out, that's fine with me.

We have lots of eagle nests around our cottage in
northern ontario that people boat around all the timw. I find it quite
a stretch to claim that eagles are disturbed by boaters.

Except that the ones on my property can be. I've seen it. But that's not
really the point. The point is to inform boaters that they *may* be so
disturbed, and that disturbing them is a federal offense, and that
activities along the creek are being monitored to prevent any such
disturbance and provide evidence for the prosecution of anyone who does
disturb them.

Those who wish to chance federal prosecution certainly have the capacity to
do so, but the risks are much greater now that they will be caught.

Of course you
must have very different eagles than what I'm used to if they're
nesting in colorado in november.

Well, you need to brush up a bit on eagle biology and habit patterns. Check
with the USFWS if you don't believe me.
--
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:
:
: 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.

--
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 Todd Bradley wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
Hi, Scott. Which law-enforcement agency is installing this system?
Does it matter?

I was just curious. Geez, are you going out of your way to avoid civil
conversation on this?

How am I being uncivil? I replied to your question with a question because
it's not relevant who is installing the system. The point is that the
system is being installed.


Anyhow, I read from your other posts that no law-enforcement agency is
installing them; it's your own private surveillance system. So you
answered my question already.

You are correct, it is a private system. What's your point?

--
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 RkyMtnHootOwl wrote:

Hi Scott, I see you are still tiltin" at windmills!

That's me, Don Quixote de la Windhover Ranch.

Sounds like you are up
against the ESA on one hand, and the paddlers on the other!

Indeed. The irony is that the Eagle Protection Act is, in this case, a
two-edged sword. On one hand, it constitutes a taking of my property without
compensation by the government, and on the other, it gives me a potent
weapon in the fight against trespass by floating.

Don't get me started on prairie dogs and the Preble's Meadow Jumping
Mouse...

I myself am
more than willing to paddle somewhere else than on that stretch of the
river, but I assume from your continuing comments that there are some that
continue to hassle you and your eagles!

Not knowingly, at least that I know of. We did have plenty of trespassers
this summer, but I'd guess that most of them had no idea what they were
getting into. That's why I'm going to put up the warning signs. I hope that
most responsible people will decide that their pleasure for an afternoon's
float on a fla****er stream isn't worth the risk of harming a majestic and
beautiful national symbol, not to mention getting arrested.

Of course, I'm equally certain that there are some sphincters out there who
don't give a damn about the eagles or anything else, and will go out of
their way to trespass just to try to "win" some obscure point.

I can only apologize for them, the
eagles I mean! It would seem though that the eagles are the best thing that
could have happened to you to abate the paddler problem. The paddlers are
accountable to the ESA rangers. How do you complain about that? Have you
found that the rangers actually stopped the paddling conflict?

Not so far. Remember, the eagles moved in just last year, moving their nest
from another tree not in proximity to the creek. I suspect they did this
because there was construction activity along the railroad tracks that year,
where the city of Lafayette put in a raw water supply pipeline. I suspect
that this activity caused the eagles to move their nest, providently for me
and unfortunately for trespassing boaters, right next to the creek.

That's why I published the article (in the Boulder Daily Camera) and posted
it here. I wanted to notify people that the situation has changed. I'll be
documenting trespasses on the creek and will be reporting to the USFWS as
well as the local Sheriff, who is in a position to respond and detain
violators pending USFWS response. Then again, under Colorado law, I can
detain them myself if I need to, though I usually try to let the Sheriff
handle it.

I've found
that there is lots of other water to paddle, where I don't have to worry
about grumpy old land owners!

Your attitude is refreshingly adult and reasonable, and I really appreciate
your comments. You have reiterated exactly what I've been saying for more
than a decade now. There's lots better (and legal) places to boat.
Unfortunately, there's a contingent of the paddling community whom I
describe as "access zealots" who are bullheadedly determined to maintain the
fiction that they can, and indeed must go wherever they can float their
boat, irrespective of the legality, consequences or impacts, as some sort of
misguided political agenda. These marginal zealots give responsible boaters
a bad name, and create a lot of conflict that could otherwise be avoided. In
the case of Colorado, they've succeeded in stirring up the hornet's nest to
the extent that they may very well have shot their own toes off and cut off
their noses to spite their faces.


Of course you lose use of the land, but I wonder how many head of cattle
that 41 acres represents?

About 10-15, which equates to about $1300 to $2000 a year for cattle, and
$5000 to $14,000 per year for horses, depending on what equestrian amenities
I decide to offer. But that's just the potential income. The value of the
property itself is much, much higher.

Of course, I'd be happy to lease the 41 acres (it's actually more like 30
acres, because part of the minimum exclusion circle for the nest site falls
on the neighbor's property because the nest is near the property line, which
would have taken too many words to explain in the article) to the USFWS for
$5000 to $14,000 per year and let them put up fences to keep livestock out,
and agree not to go into that area without their permission.

In fact, I'm going to propose precisely that to the FWS at some point.

I plan to seek an "incidental take" permit that would permit me to enter the
exclusion area as necessary for livestock management, agricultural
operations and personal pleasure. If such a permit is granted, my complaint
will end there, as I will again have access to my land and am not liable for
arrest for disturbing the eagles. I don't believe that an incidental take
permit is allowed under the statute for those purposes, so I fully expect to
be turned down.

Then I'll ask the feds to pay rent on the property they've excluded me from.
I think $5000 to $14,000 a year is a bargain for such valuable, rare eagle
habitat. After all, there are only two such nests in all of Boulder County,
and, as they say in real estate, "location, location, location!" I don't
expect that to succeed either, unless Pombo's bill passes, of course. I
could be pleasantly surprised, however, in which case my complaint will
end...so long as they pay the rent. This is the preferred solution.

The final step in the process is to sue the government for
unconstitutionally taking my property without just compensation, thereby
setting a precedent for all existing and future eagle nest (and ESA habitat)
hosts while compensating me for the loss I've suffered.

You can still enjoy the view, which I am sure
would be nice just as a conservancy. Could you not donate the land to a
conservancy group, and take a good tax right off, and still have the view?

Been there, done that. The City of Boulder open space department holds a
conservation easement on the property that prevents most development,
particularly in the White Rocks Natural Area, which is 105 acres including
the cliffs, the creek and the adjacent riparian areas.

However, cattle and horse ranching is still allowed, and is in fact
necessary to the health of the ecosystem.

As for "donating" it, why would I want to do that? This property is
potentially worth millions of dollars (I know because I'm being taxed by the
IRS estate tax as if it has already been developed in to several "luxury
estate" home sites...even though it's not, and likely will never be...) and
it's both my home and my legacy.

Having the "view" is hardly sufficient either. Just last weekend, I spent
the entire afternoon sitting on a log near the creek watching and
photographing the herd of whitetails browsing around me, much of the time
within 15 yards. A month ago, my business partner and his wife saw an
endangered Canada Lynx on the lane.

How can I get THAT "view" by giving the property to someone else?

Besides, I AM a "conservancy." I know more about conserving this property
than anybody alive, so I'm the best person to be stewarding the property
into the future.

I know that this is difficult when you are fourth generation, but sometimes
it is better to bend than to break. My family lost ranch land to the US
Military for air bases during each of the last two WW's, and we got very
little from them in return, and didn't get any sort of view either, but
then that was war time, and we all had to make sacrifices! I understand
that we are at war now, so I suppose that may have something to do with
your present ongoing situation!

That sucks big time, but eminent domain, particularly during wartime, is
just one of those things. I don't think that Homeland Security has their
eyes on my property just yet, fortunately. You did, however, get *some*
compensation, as inadequate as you may have felt it was. I've gotten nothing
for being a good steward of the land and for protecting it so that the
eagles *want* to nest here. That's hardly fair, since it's the public that
puts the value on the eagles, not me.


I wondered what happened to you after all the discussions last Spring, I
got busy during the Summer, and I lost track of the previous conversation,
but it sounds like you are ready for the new cabin fever season! Let the
games begin!

I've been way busy too, producing a second DVD project for most of the
summer and now we're into the marketing effort.


We never kept our lunch appt. so that may still be in the works, if you are
up to it! I realize that prospect may still disturb some of my other
friends here on the RBP, but they should rest easy. I would point out that
I have changed my Nom-de-Plume, having spent the Summer mellowing out. I
might even be protected under that ESA regs! RkyMtnHootOwl 0v0

Life is about each moment of breath,
Living, about each breathless moment!

Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT

and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0


2 WW kayaks,
'73 Folbot Super,
pre '60 Klepper AEII
77 Hobie Cat 16

Glad you're feeling better.

--
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
 

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.
--
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
 

" 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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

See, there's that small-minded, petty selfishness I was talking about...


Heh, heh; the technique of the Big Lie: accuse someone else of yer own
sin so that you can pretend to be virtuous.

You probably imagine that there are a bunch of new faces in r.b.p that
don't remember all yer years and years of mail-bombing the newsgroup
with detail after excruciating detail about yer own little problem,
though it has never been clear that so much as a single r.b.p reader
has been amongst the kayakers who have so effectively driven you off
yer nut, and though many, if not most, of us were on yer side before
you became so insufferably tiresome (but you probably don't remember
that; ain't selective memory grand?)

As if yer spam-bombing of r.b.p is not a clear and obvious symptom of,
heh-heh, wallowing in yer own "small-minded, petty selfishness."

You succeed in yer self-proclaimed goal of "annoy[ing] people
WORLDWIDE", and then turn around and act all self-righteous about any
expression of that annoyance.

What a putz.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Hi Scott! :-)

I still wonder, who would *want* to paddle on Boulder Creek east of 75th
street?
When I paddled Boulder Creek, I think the takeout was at 39th street. Is there
any
whitewater between 39th and 75th, moreover any WW east of 75th? ;-)

This is the same question I've been asking myself lo these many years.
Evidently, people like to experience the natural area and see the cliffs,
and floating through is the lazy way of doing so. I can't say I blame them
for wanting to see the area, curiosity is natural thing. However, just
because they want to see the place doesn¹t mean they have any right to do so
without my permission.


True, with the way the laws are in Colorado. It's not that way in Missouri however,
as we've discussed before. In Missouri, the landowner does not own the surface water
and any boater is well within his legal rights to boat though any private property,
and I believe can even be on the shore up to the high water mark (wherever that is!)

Of course, it's also hopefully common knowlege never to argue legal points with a
landowner with a gun too! ;-)


we got to meet!! :-) )

Someday soon, I hope.

Probably never gonna happen Scott, Unfortunately. I've been unemployed pretty much
since 2002, and am currently trying to get into a nursing program to become an RN,
so I can *get* a job! So my Colorado trips have not been happening for me since,
yano? :-( And I don't see them resuming in the near future either. :-( :-( :-(

John Kuthe...

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself John Fereira wrote:

" 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.

Well, yes, on public land. If a public land entity closes public lands to
public entry for conservation purposes, then it's illegal to enter that
area. That's precisely what the City of Boulder has done with the creek and
riparian area immediately upstream of my property that the city owns.

But when the protected species occurs on private land, no such declaration
is needed, or indeed authorized by the law.

The federal law neither requires nor authorizes a "closure action" on the
part of the USFWS for a specific nest site in order to authorize
prosecution. The law is extremely broad. If there's an active eagle's nest
about, individuals without permits are forbidden to "molest or disturb" the
nesting eagles, period.

It's entirely self-actuating, and it's non-specific as to *how* that
disturbance occurs. It makes ANY disturbance illegal, no matter how close or
far you are from the nest. If the government can prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that your activities, from kayaking 50 yards to mining gravel or
building a house, "molest(ed) or disturb(ed) nesting eagles, you're going
down.

Now, a reasonable and just government will, when it's able, provide NOTICE
of nesting eagles in circumstances where the general public might
unknowingly or unwittingly intrude on them, and it may choose to establish
perimeter fences and otherwise supervise public access, as is done at Barr
Lake near Denver, where there are several eagle nests, but they are not
*required* to do either under the law. The burden is on the citizen to know
and obey the law.

So, if you choose to boat through my property, you risk disturbing the
eagles, which is a crime. If I can document that event and provide that
evidence to the government to aid in prosecution, I will.


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.

Yup, exactly. It's dangerous to generalize about eagle behavior,
particularly when the stakes are as high as they are. That's why I don't
even venture into the exclusion zone while the eagles are nesting.


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.

How do you figure that? All just power derives from the people, and citizens
are fully entitled to enforce the law (and even arrest people for violations
that occur in their presence in Colorado...including misdemeanors) and every
citizen has not only a right, but I argue a civic duty and obligation to
assist the government in law enforcement. Providing a surveillance system at
private expense that documents illegal acts in no way diminishes the value
of the evidence in a criminal prosecution. It's commonplace for law
enforcement to seize by warrant or subpoena private video recordings from
all manner of video devices commonly found in public places, including ATM
cameras, security systems and even web-cams, when those recordings are of
probative evidential value.

Nor is it in the least improper for me to actively participate in monitoring
trespassers and reporting them to authorities in order to protect the
nesting eagles. The nest is on my land, so I'm perfectly entitled to take
any and all lawful actions to protect it, even if there was no specific
statute protecting it.

--
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 Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

See, there's that small-minded, petty selfishness I was talking about...


Heh, heh; the technique of the Big Lie: accuse someone else of yer own
sin so that you can pretend to be virtuous.

Pot, kettle, black.


You probably imagine that there are a bunch of new faces in r.b.p that
don't remember all yer years and years of mail-bombing the newsgroup
with detail after excruciating detail about yer own little problem,
though it has never been clear that so much as a single r.b.p reader
has been amongst the kayakers who have so effectively driven you off
yer nut, and though many, if not most, of us were on yer side before
you became so insufferably tiresome (but you probably don't remember
that; ain't selective memory grand?)

Nah. My motive is much simpler. I'm giving due notice in one of the many
forums through which I can reach and notify a segment of the recreational
public, part of whom do, in fact, violate my rights and the law, of a new
threat to THEM. It's just one step in my long-standing policy of defending
my rights. By posting here, and by vigorously defending my rights, I help to
prevent any argument that I have not actively opposed attempts to seize my
property through prescriptive easement.

If you weren't such a myopic hate-monger, you would realize that by
notifying boaters of the nest I'm actually doing them a favor. I could have
just kept quiet about it and then hammered every boater who unwittingly
violated the federal law by disturbing the eagles. I decided that it only
fair to let people know that they are chancing federal prosecution by
floating through my property. That's why I'm going to the expense of putting
up warning signs.

As to whether anyone is or was on my side, I couldn't possibly care less. I
assume that those who actually post here are pretty clear in their
positions. That's fine. But there are many others who "lurk" and don't post,
and it's important to remember this when you try to speak for everyone.
Also, word of this issue will certainly spread from here to other forums and
venues, as it always has. This will help to notify more boaters of the
potential threat of legal consequences for disturbing or molesting nesting
eagles. Many people think that because eagles were de-listed as an
endangered species, that this means that they can now ignore the eagles and
go about whatever they want to do, and the eagles just have to put up with
it.

Heck, that's what *I* though, until the Open Space ranger called me and told
me about the TWO other federal statutes that protect eagles. (Are you smart
enough to find the OTHER one? I don¹t think so...)

So, I learned something I didn't know, and have reacted appropriately by
voluntarily informing an at-risk group of people of the hazard. What the
heck is so wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You just have an irrational and unreasoning hatred of me
because you perceive me as your "enemy."

As to being "insufferably tiresome," if true (which I doubt) that's your
fault (the collective you) not mine. All you have to do is agree with me and
avoid infringing on my rights and invading my property. If you do that,
we'll get along fine. But so long as there is an entrenched, organized
agenda of violating my (and other private landowner's) rights that manifests
itself here, I'll continue to stand up for landowners. If you don't like it,
tough.

I know you may find my arguments "tiresome," but that's a derogation of your
intellect, not an impeachment of my position.


As if yer spam-bombing of r.b.p is not a clear and obvious symptom of,
heh-heh, wallowing in yer own "small-minded, petty selfishness."

Nice try at redefining "spam-bombing." Sorry, but every post is an original,
so it cannot, by definition, be either spam, or bombing. You just hate the
fact that I type faster than you do, and that I'm willing to continue a
debate for as long as anyone is interested in it. You hate that because you
know I'm right and you're wrong, and you'd just as soon shut me up so that
only your voice and agenda are heard.

Good luck with that...heh...


You succeed in yer self-proclaimed goal of "annoy[ing] people
WORLDWIDE", and then turn around and act all self-righteous about any
expression of that annoyance.

Nah. I'm just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of claiming to be oh-so
environmentally sensitive while at the same time being so filled with
unreasoning hate that when, after months of NOT "spam-bombing" RBP, I make a
perfectly reasonable post informing paddlers, for their own protection, of a
serious issue of environmental conservation, all you can do is engage in
petty sniping.

You could have engaged in rational debate about the issue of the possible
unintended consequences of boating activities as regards threatened and
endangered species, which is very real issue worthy of discussion. But you
didn't. This demonstrates the shallowness of both your intellect and your
morals.

What a putz.

You certainly are.

--
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 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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Here's some food for thought for those contemplating paddling on Boulder
Creek east of 75th St. in Boulder, CO through the private property of
Windhover Ranch LLLP.

Hi Scott! :-)

I still wonder, who would *want* to paddle on Boulder Creek east of 75th
street?
When I paddled Boulder Creek, I think the takeout was at 39th street. Is
there
any
whitewater between 39th and 75th, moreover any WW east of 75th? ;-)

This is the same question I've been asking myself lo these many years.
Evidently, people like to experience the natural area and see the cliffs,
and floating through is the lazy way of doing so. I can't say I blame them
for wanting to see the area, curiosity is natural thing. However, just
because they want to see the place doesn¹t mean they have any right to do so
without my permission.


True, with the way the laws are in Colorado. It's not that way in Missouri
however,
as we've discussed before. In Missouri, the landowner does not own the surface
water
and any boater is well within his legal rights to boat though any private
property,
and I believe can even be on the shore up to the high water mark (wherever
that is!)

As I've said often enough, I'm ONLY concerned with Colorado and how the law
applies here.


--
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
 

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.

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.

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and only the pig will
enjoy it...

Pete in Atlanta

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:18:30 -0700, Scott Weiser
wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Poor baby. Please allow me to be the first to pass you a hankie.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

See, there's that small-minded, petty selfishness I was talking about...


Heh, heh; the technique of the Big Lie: accuse someone else of yer own
sin so that you can pretend to be virtuous.

Pot, kettle, black.


You probably imagine that there are a bunch of new faces in r.b.p that
don't remember all yer years and years of mail-bombing the newsgroup
with detail after excruciating detail about yer own little problem,
though it has never been clear that so much as a single r.b.p reader
has been amongst the kayakers who have so effectively driven you off
yer nut, and though many, if not most, of us were on yer side before
you became so insufferably tiresome (but you probably don't remember
that; ain't selective memory grand?)

Nah. My motive is much simpler. I'm giving due notice in one of the many
forums through which I can reach and notify a segment of the recreational
public, part of whom do, in fact, violate my rights and the law, of a new
threat to THEM. It's just one step in my long-standing policy of defending
my rights. By posting here, and by vigorously defending my rights, I help to
prevent any argument that I have not actively opposed attempts to seize my
property through prescriptive easement.

If you weren't such a myopic hate-monger, you would realize that by
notifying boaters of the nest I'm actually doing them a favor. I could have
just kept quiet about it and then hammered every boater who unwittingly
violated the federal law by disturbing the eagles. I decided that it only
fair to let people know that they are chancing federal prosecution by
floating through my property. That's why I'm going to the expense of putting
up warning signs.

As to whether anyone is or was on my side, I couldn't possibly care less. I
assume that those who actually post here are pretty clear in their
positions. That's fine. But there are many others who "lurk" and don't post,
and it's important to remember this when you try to speak for everyone.
Also, word of this issue will certainly spread from here to other forums and
venues, as it always has. This will help to notify more boaters of the
potential threat of legal consequences for disturbing or molesting nesting
eagles. Many people think that because eagles were de-listed as an
endangered species, that this means that they can now ignore the eagles and
go about whatever they want to do, and the eagles just have to put up with
it.

Heck, that's what *I* though, until the Open Space ranger called me and told
me about the TWO other federal statutes that protect eagles. (Are you smart
enough to find the OTHER one? I don¹t think so...)

So, I learned something I didn't know, and have reacted appropriately by
voluntarily informing an at-risk group of people of the hazard. What the
heck is so wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You just have an irrational and unreasoning hatred of me
because you perceive me as your "enemy."

As to being "insufferably tiresome," if true (which I doubt) that's your
fault (the collective you) not mine. All you have to do is agree with me and
avoid infringing on my rights and invading my property. If you do that,
we'll get along fine. But so long as there is an entrenched, organized
agenda of violating my (and other private landowner's) rights that manifests
itself here, I'll continue to stand up for landowners. If you don't like it,
tough.

I know you may find my arguments "tiresome," but that's a derogation of your
intellect, not an impeachment of my position.


As if yer spam-bombing of r.b.p is not a clear and obvious symptom of,
heh-heh, wallowing in yer own "small-minded, petty selfishness."

Nice try at redefining "spam-bombing." Sorry, but every post is an original,
so it cannot, by definition, be either spam, or bombing. You just hate the
fact that I type faster than you do, and that I'm willing to continue a
debate for as long as anyone is interested in it. You hate that because you
know I'm right and you're wrong, and you'd just as soon shut me up so that
only your voice and agenda are heard.

Good luck with that...heh...


You succeed in yer self-proclaimed goal of "annoy[ing] people
WORLDWIDE", and then turn around and act all self-righteous about any
expression of that annoyance.

Nah. I'm just pointing out the rank hypocrisy of claiming to be oh-so
environmentally sensitive while at the same time being so filled with
unreasoning hate that when, after months of NOT "spam-bombing" RBP, I make a
perfectly reasonable post informing paddlers, for their own protection, of a
serious issue of environmental conservation, all you can do is engage in
petty sniping.

You could have engaged in rational debate about the issue of the possible
unintended consequences of boating activities as regards threatened and
endangered species, which is very real issue worthy of discussion. But you
didn't. This demonstrates the shallowness of both your intellect and your
morals.

What a putz.

You certainly are.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

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.

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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.

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.

Of course, I did manage to get YOU to "waste" some time, didn't I? What does
that say about your intellect?


Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and only the pig will
enjoy it...

Unless you're planning a pig roast.



--
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 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

Boulder Creek and the Eagles
 

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