Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[Seth]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The eagles were there first.

[maiforpeace]

What he said.

You don't want to move the nest. If you did and the babies were left to starve, wouldn't you feel awful? The parents may abandon the nest for a number of reasons...so, keep an eye on it if you are worried about the babies.

I've heard it's a myth that human scent is what keeps parents away...it's not being able to find them after they've been moved, fear of leading predators to the nest that sort of thing is what keeps the parents away.

[Feck]

@ SETH Good thing Eagles are not as big as Barn doors or you would stand a chance shooting them ! after all they are just Trespassing on Your land .


It seems to me you should be happy and privileged to own enough land to be home to them ,and to imply that the State should pay you for not killing them despite the fact that you resent every single dime you contribute to the state is typical of your twisted view on ....well everything really .

I think Pawiz had a thread about people like you ,and the best way to wash you off shoes ?

[Seth]

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.

[Feck]

[Seth]

@ SETH Good thing Eagles are not as big as Barn doors or you would stand a chance shooting them ! after all they are just Trespassing on Your land .


It seems to me you should be happy and privileged to own enough land to be home to them ,and to imply that the State should pay you for not killing them despite the fact that you resent every single dime you contribute to the state is typical of your twisted view on ....well everything really .

I think Pawiz had a thread about people like you ,and the best way to wash you off shoes ?

And as usual, you knee-jerk your way to being embarrassed. And you perpetrate a personal attack at the same time. I think I'll report this one just because of the last thread involving personal attacks and the consensus that it's the appropriate thing to do.

As I just said, it's not about the eagles. I love the eagles. I spent my entire life creating a habitat that is suitable and attractive for eagles. I don't mind that the eagles nest there, and in fact I am honored that my efforts invited them there, and I constantly protect their nests and habitat against encroachments and damage precisely so that they will continue to nest there.

However, that's MY CHOICE to make, not the government's. The government doesn't get to tell me that I am required not only continue to host the eagles perpetually, but also that I'm not allowed to make use of or enjoy almost half of my property because IT believes that eagles need to be protected.

If the government is not willing to pay me to rent that land, then I should be entitled to cut down the trees and poison the prairie dogs that they need to survive, because they are my trees and my pastures. If the cheap bastard taxpayers don't want to pony up the rent, then why should anyone create or maintain habitat for any critter?

I actually know more about nesting eagles and what "disturbs" them than most government busybodies precisely because I've completely ignored what the pundits and alarmists have to say about it and I actually go to the trouble of observing their behavior, in detail, over a span of decades. As a result, I know some things they don't, like the fact that eagles are not nearly as sensitive to "intrusion" by humans as the zealots would have us believe.

In fact, I can, and often do, get within 50 yards of the nest and all the eagles do is look at me. That's because I do it all the time, as a regular and routine part of managing the property, and the eagles know that I'm not a threat to them. In other words, they habituate to human activity very quickly. In one case nearby, zealots closed a public trail along an irrigation canal because eagles decided to nest in a cottonwood tree that the trail passed under. What the zealots failed to understand is that the eagles nested in that tree WHILE IT WAS BEING USED BY THE PUBLIC. It should be painfully obvious that they didn't mind the people using the trail.

The same thing is observable in Alaska, where eagles nest in trees adjacent to human activity all the time.

This is not about whether the eagles are welcome, they are perfectly welcome, it's about what power the government has to dictate to me (or anyone else) what I may or may not do on my own land, and it's about the requirements of the Constitution, which says that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

Telling me to stay off my own land under threat of criminal prosecution so that the government can raise eagles using my trees and my land certainly qualifies as a taking, and so I am entitled to compensation from the government.

The eagles are welcome. Government regulations are not. Pay up, deadbeats.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, Seth, but you have no idea when eagles did or did not live there in say, the last million years. I know your egocentric universe started a few decades ago, but the world has been around longer than that.

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.

Yep, humans suck.

[Seth]

Sorry, Seth, but you have no idea when eagles did or did not live there in say, the last million years. I know your egocentric universe started a few decades ago, but the world has been around longer than that.

And you don't know that they did live there. Ever. I do know that they were not resident anywhere in the county in 1960, and that's all that matters. At that time we had every right, since they were not present, to cut down every tree and kill every pest species and pave the land over and build houses so that it would never, ever be eagle habitat. But we didn't.

But that's completely irrelevant. It's not about the "rights" of the eagles, it's about powers of government and how our Constitution restrains that power and requires it to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use.

Eagles will nest where there is suitable habitat and prey, but that does not give government the right to demand that a private property owner give up his property to the government for its use without just compensation, and that happens to include giving it up to use it as habitat for protected species.

And because we voluntarily chose not to permanently destroy their habitat, which almost everyone else around us did choose to do...and profited handsomely in doing so, I now face federal prosecution every time I go out to fix a fence or irrigate a pasture. In no way is that fair or reasonable.

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.

[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.

[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 .

[Geoff]

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.

The word "should" is bad enough, even before it's prefaced with "the government".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

[Feck]

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?

See my post above and Seth's intro post where he says he is full of shit but we ain't allowed to call him out over it .

[Seth]

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.