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

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

Blakely
---
Blakely LaCroix
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
r.b.p clique member #86

"The best adventure is yet to come"

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

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

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