Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[Seth]

The government should be PAYING for people to create and preserve habitat for protected species, not forcing people to give up their property rights for the use and enjoyment of the public.

So you're good with raising taxes to fund this kind of thing?

Nope. People can donate voluntarily to save the eagle habitat, which is far better because it puts the economic burden where it belongs, on those who wish to save eagles.

[Seth]

Seth it is not an Ad hom if I point out that IMHO you have exceeded you quota of fucking stupid for the year not too mention bloody hypocritical nonsense. I guess this one of those times you should remind us that your stated opinions on this forum are only posted to be contentious,are liable to change , might not be your actual opinions ,or whatever your introductory post said ? Honestly I can see why you had to try and post a disclaimer on the drivel that runs out of your keyboard I just truly hope You can see the funny side of the caricature your posts seem to show . I can see why you think you need two handguns and a big sniper rifle .... not to keep you safe but to drown out the laughter .

If there is a quota for fucking stupid, you've run out your allotment for life long ago.

[Ironclad]

Fucking mother fuckers, do you sons of bee-hatches really have to spill minor flame-wars & straw-man this - straw-man that into every sacred nook and cranny? Really? This was just about little birdys you humps.. shit!
* hastily searches internet thesaurus for other word like 'sacred' *

Isn't anything err.. inviolable anymore?

*wipe brow*

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, I'll go with the eagles. We both know there's every likelihood that they nested there before some guy with an axe showed up.

Again, strawman argument. This isn't about eagles or their "rights," it's about the powers of government and the Constitution.

Seth, for you it's about human power trips. I don't have your massive ego.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.fox2now.com/news/sns-ap-mo-- ... 4392.story not forcing people to give up their property rights for the use and enjoyment of the public.

So you're good with raising taxes to fund this kind of thing?

Nope. People can donate voluntarily to save the eagle habitat, which is far better because it puts the economic burden where it belongs, on those who wish to save eagles.

The government should be PAYING for people to create and preserve habitat for protected species, Your bullshit back at you.

[Feck]

Seth it is not an Ad hom if I point out that IMHO you have exceeded you quota of fucking stupid for the year not too mention bloody hypocritical nonsense. I guess this one of those times you should remind us that your stated opinions on this forum are only posted to be contentious,are liable to change , might not be your actual opinions ,or whatever your introductory post said ? Honestly I can see why you had to try and post a disclaimer on the drivel that runs out of your keyboard I just truly hope You can see the funny side of the caricature your posts seem to show . I can see why you think you need two handguns and a big sniper rifle .... not to keep you safe but to drown out the laughter .

If there is a quota for fucking stupid, you've run out your allotment for life long ago.

Great come back NOT Now you were about to explain how the state should pay you for having eagles rather than charge you for the privilege ?Assuming that the state actually has any money which you have said repeatedly it shouldn't take from You .

[Gallstones]

Federal crime in the US to disturb nesting migratory birds or their nests. In fact, I believe it's an international migratory bird treaty, so it may be a crime in the UK too.

Leave them alone till the nest has been abandoned completely.

If it's an eagle, you're fucked for 10 years after the last time the nest was occupied by eagles.

I have three "active" eagle nesting trees on the ranch at the moment, only one of which is occupied. The other two have been abandoned for, repectively, one and six years. Not only can I not disturb the nests, I cannot even enter a circle 660 feet in radius around the nest tree from February to the end of August without risking a federal prosecution under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. That's 33 acres, more or less, around each of the three nests, or 99 acres of my own land that I'm not permitted to use and enjoy, and that the US Fish and Wildlife Service effectively owns, but does not pay any rent for.

Good thing I like eagles. Still, if the public wants to use my land as an eagle-breeding facility, then the public should pay rent just like anyone else who wants to use my property.

Seth, you are "the public" proportionally. They are your eagles too.
But, you get to enjoy special privilege of having them live with you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, you are "the public" proportionally. They are your eagles too.
But, you get to enjoy special privilege of having them live with you.

Seth only wants to pay for that portion of the infrastructure he actually uses. Like the highway from Florida that brings his orange juice. Or the part of the National Weather Service that covers his house. (Silly idea, collecting data from elsewhere, Seth's weather is RIGHT THERE OUTSIDE THE WINDOW.)

[Gallstones]

The eagles were there first.

No, in point of fact they were not. They did not arrive there till more than 20 years after my family bought the ranch and began vigorous conservation efforts to rebuild the ecosystem, which had been devastated by over-grazing and cultivation.

When I arrived, the place was denuded of almost all vegetation, and there were very few trees suitable for eagle nests, and nothing for them to eat.

Over the next few decades, my efforts (as ranch manager) recovered the pastures and made them healthy, and permitted the growth of trees along the riparian corridor along the creek that flows through the property. These trees contributed to the abundance of prey species that took residence, and a carefully-managed prairie dog population brought raptors to the property, which was a particular priority for us.

They also grew into suitable nesting trees.

The eagles arrived to nest in 1985, and have nested there every year since, thanks to our efforts at creating both a suitable nesting and foraging environment for them, and our willingness to preserve that environment at our own expense.

We did not do what everybody around us did, which was to sell the land for residential development, which resulted in the destruction of eagle nesting and foraging habitat for miles in every direction.

Therefore, it's not unreasonable to expect that if the public is going to take my property for public use, it owes me just compensation. After all, I could have cut down all the trees and killed all the prairie dogs and sold the land for houses. But I didn't. Why then should the public have a right to demand that I host eagles at my expense rather than their expense.

This is not, you see, about whether the eagles were "there first" or not, it's about whether the government has the right to expropriate my land for it's own purposes against my will and without my consent, without paying for the privilege of doing so. The Constitution says it does not.

So, you are simply ignorantly incorrect...again.

You, with forethought, created habitat, and it bore fruit so to speak.
I'd be stoked. It would be a source of great joy and sense of accomplishment for me.
The public aren't using your habitat, the wildlife is.
If you didn't want the wildlife there why did you create habitat?
Their presence is validation of your success.

You could charge a fee to photographers and birders.
Think man.

[Gallstones]

Birds. Happy stories about birds.
Can we not have this thread for birds? Think of the birds. Think of the people who are thinking of the birds.

• 

[charlou]

Splitting off the debate to another thread would be good.

Some good Ratz around.

Yes, indeed.

[Bella Fortuna]

Birds. Happy stories about birds.
Can we not have this thread for birds? Think of the birds. Think of the people who are thinking of the birds.

• 

Yes please!

Let the peacocks strut elsewhere.

[charlou]

I've started a thread in the Tech forum re keeping threads in the lounge flame free ...

[Twoflower]

Derail split from here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 24&t=27895

[pErvinalia]

Federal crime in the US to disturb nesting migratory birds or their nests. In fact, I believe it's an international migratory bird treaty, so it may be a crime in the UK too.

Leave them alone till the nest has been abandoned completely.

If it's an eagle, you're fucked for 10 years after the last time the nest was occupied by eagles.

I have three "active" eagle nesting trees on the ranch at the moment, only one of which is occupied. The other two have been abandoned for, repectively, one and six years. Not only can I not disturb the nests, I cannot even enter a circle 660 feet in radius around the nest tree from February to the end of August without risking a federal prosecution under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. That's 33 acres, more or less, around each of the three nests, or 99 acres of my own land that I'm not permitted to use and enjoy, and that the US Fish and Wildlife Service effectively owns, but does not pay any rent for.

Good thing I like eagles. Still, if the public wants to use my land as an eagle-breeding facility, then the public should pay rent just like anyone else who wants to use my property.

That's quite a harsh regulation. Was this regulation in act when you bought/inherited the land? If not, then i'd reckon you should get some compensation for this. If it was, then you don't really have leg to stand on, both legally (I'm assuming) and morally.