Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[MrJonno]

Bats!!!

Looks like we have similar laws in the UK, if bats nest in your house you need permission to do anything in your roof and must not upset them too much

http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/living_with_bats.html

Through I don't think your average Brit will have any problems with eagles as average house size is 7.4 square metres 80 square feet

[Seth]

I think there is no chance of us seeing eye-to-eye.
The american attitude to property is entirely different to the English one.
It surprised me, when you spoke about the right to remove trespassers.
The opposite is true in England. There is a legal right to roam, which is much prized and jealously guarded, and you need a court order to evict people.

That's one of the reasons we kicked the King's ass out of our new country, his (and the general public) disrespect for private property.

Maybe we accept intrusion and limitations placed on land because we have a much smaller country, and what we do is more likely to affect a neighbour.

Could be, but it's as likely that Brits are simply accustomed to servility and since historically they didn't get to own much anyway, as serfs, they are unaccustomed to the benefits of enjoying the exclusive use of property, including real estate. After all, when the King owns everything and can give and take away at a whim, it doesn't make for a culture used to insisting on respect for their individual rights.

I do agree that the current eagle law is unfortunate, in that it's likely to result in the opposite to what is intended. People are going to be tempted to deter eagles or even trap or poison them, if the law is that draconian.

Indeed. Shoot, shovel and shut up. The big controversy right now is in California, where the enormous wind farms on coastal hills are chopping eagles and other birds in half left and right. The eco-weenies are fighting with the other eco-weenies over whether the wind turbines have to be redesigned or removed. Of course the other problem with the law is that eagles are no longer endangered and have recovered nicely, with more than 7000 nesting pairs as of 2000... which estimates to a population exceeding 12,000. That's why they were removed from the Endangered Species list. But they didn't repeal the Eagle Act when they did that.

I would certainly argue that the government should take another look at the detail of it's regulations. They do seem to have gone over the top with the restrictions.
Eagle chicks and other birds of prey are routinely ringed, and even have dna samples taken in this country, to deter thefts of chicks etc.
There is definitely room for sensible emergency incursion into a nest area of thirty acres.
Over here we have a national association for bird protection, and they usually have a very good relationship with landowners, and help out where there are problems.

Several common-sense solutions are possible, including operating plans and leases. None appear to be forthcoming.

I suspect though, that for the main part, eagles in the US probably nest in much larger landholdings, rather than smaller, where thirty acres is of little consequence.

Actually, it's pretty remarkable how adaptable to human presence they truly are. They are found nesting on things like power plants, and in trees adjacent to airport runways. There is an airport (I forget where just now) that is facing shut down because eagles decided to nest in a tree adjacent to the runway a year or two ago, even though planes have been landing and taking off there for decades.

It's just idiocy. And it's egregiously unfair. Far better to offer incentives for people to provide habitat for eagles. A lease for 33 acres of pasture land wouldn't cost the government much at all, perhaps as little as a couple of hundred dollars per year, and ranchers would be glad to offer it so long as it allowed emergency entry to the plot to tend to livestock or do other necessary work, like fixing fences.

But that evidently makes too much sense for federal bureaucrats to allow it.

[mistermack]

That's one of the reasons we kicked the King's ass out of our new country, his (and the general public) disrespect for private property.

Not taxation then? And what do you mean we? I didn't know anybody was that old.
Of course I support independence from empire. It's got nothing to do with Eagles though.

Could be, but it's as likely that Brits are simply accustomed to servility and since historically they didn't get to own much anyway, as serfs, they are unaccustomed to the benefits of enjoying the exclusive use of property, including real estate. After all, when the King owns everything and can give and take away at a whim, it doesn't make for a culture used to insisting on respect for their individual rights.

If you are going to go back five hundred years, then I'm sure your ancestors were serfs as well. And Britain abandoned slavery much earlier than America.
If you want to be taken seriously, I would quote something a bit more recent if I were you.

Like I said, I agree that the regulations are over the top.
Over here the bird society regularly handles chicks, rings them, film them and take dna samples, so they are not that delicate that you need a thirty acre no-go zone.
Like I said, it's likely to defeat the object of the exercise. In some cases.

But I still agree with the principle that the state has a right and duty to insist that landowners don't destroy wildlife. It's the way that they've gone about it that I would argue with.