Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to rec.boats.paddle
|
|||
|
|||
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 thatıs working itıs 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 speciesrural landowners who have voluntarily preserved habitat. At the same time, the ESA absolves those who are truly responsible for the loss of habitatthe seething public masses who demand more suburban homes and shopping mallsof 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 Iıve done so willingly and joyfullyuntil 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 weıve 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. Itıs 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 arenıt 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 theyıve taken dominion and control of? Why shouldnıt 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, donıt 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 thatıs 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 itıs done in the name of protecting species the public places enormous value upon, but without the public as a whole supporting that preservation. Thatıs the grievance that Rep. Pomboıs 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 covetscritical wildlife habitat. İ 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 İ 2005 Scott Weiser |