Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[pErvinalia]

shoot the eagle and bury the evidence?

[mistermack]

Fuck me, do I have to paint you a picture?
I was obviously right.
"Use common sense" means that you assess the individual circumstances, and work out the best course of action based on that.
It would hardly be common sense for me to say what to do now, not seeing the situation, not knowing the history of the breed, how well they calf, and not knowing your neighbours, and if they are likely to rat on you. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

You weigh it all up, when it happens, and apply common sense, knowing the circumstances.
Why on earth do you need me to explain that to you?
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For example, if one of my heifers is having difficulty calving under the eagle's nesting tree, I take a substantial risk of violating federal law and being subject to fine and imprisonment if my attempts to save my cow and calf cause the eagles to abandon an egg or chick.

I have to agree, in that situation, you are completely fucked. Because something like that calls for common sense.

Yeah, and shades of grey and "reasonable" are not allowed in Seth's world view. Him and Sandy are standing back to back and glaring at each other across the political spectrum.

[Seth]

shoot the eagle and bury the evidence?

Shoot, shovel and shut up is always an option, but most people fail on the third "S" and end up getting caught.

But this punishes the wrong entity. I've nothing against the eagles, it's the federal government I have an issue with, and it's difficult to identify a specific effective target in that respect. And you have to dig a bigger hole.

[Seth]

Fuck me, do I have to paint you a picture?

When you're as obtuse, abstruse and recondite as you are, yes, that would be helpful.

I was obviously right.

No, you're obviously left.

"Use common sense" means that you assess the individual circumstances, and work out the best course of action based on that.

Evasion.

It would hardly be common sense for me to say what to do now, not seeing the situation, not knowing the history of the breed, how well they calf, and not knowing your neighbours, and if they are likely to rat on you. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

The question is a simple one: Either I respect the law and stay out of the 660 foot radius zone of exclusion under the nest tree and allow my cow and calf to die, which is not only a misdemeanor state crime but also costs me several thousand dollars at a minimum, or do I disobey the federal law and risk being fined $150,000 and imprisonment if my work "disturbs" an eagle?

So answer the question. Which is the just result, given the fact that they are my cows, on my land, under my tree...that happens to have an eagle nest in it?

You weigh it all up, when it happens, and apply common sense, knowing the circumstances.
Why on earth do you need me to explain that to you?
.

I don't. I need you to understand the rhetorical nature of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nature of the inequity of the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which imposes on me a duty that is not shared by the public that insisted on imposing the duty, either physically or economically, and which takes my land for public use without just compensation.

But I understand this is probably a vain expectation, given that you seem not to understand the concept of private property or government imposition of unfair burdens in the public interest, much less the constitutional issues involved.

[mistermack]

I understand the concept of private property all right.
But I understand the reality of it. You dwell on a fantasy.
Private property gives you limited rights. So you disagree with those limits.

Well, this real world disagrees with you. And this real world is a lot bigger than you.
I personally think it's a good thing.
Don't buy land, if you don't like the wildlife laws. It's perfectly simple.

There are lots of laws I disagree with. That's life. It's the same for everyone.

[Robert_S]

Lol @ this whole thread.

Seth's stance, to me, looks like it could be summed up as not wanting the government to require him to do what he wants to do anyway, namely be cool to the eagles. I understand that complaint and sympathize. Intrusive government is intrusive and no government agent, or any agent for that matter, should be trusted to apply common sense.

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

[Seth]

Lol @ this whole thread.

Seth's stance, to me, looks like it could be summed up as not wanting the government to require him to do what he wants to do anyway, namely be cool to the eagles. I understand that complaint and sympathize. Intrusive government is intrusive and no government agent, or any agent for that matter, should be trusted to apply common sense.

No, it's not about being "cool" with eagles, it's about a regulatory taking of my property. The government has the power to take my property, I acknowledge that. Eminent domain is a well-known power of government, and certainly protecting eagles is a "public use" that would authorize such a taking. The issue here is COMPENSATION. Under our Constitution, when the government takes your property for a park or a highway, it MUST pay you "just compensation" for that taking. This is an absolute in our law. There is no getting around it...theoretically...except in the case of eagles and the Endangered Species Act.

Those law effect takings of private property for public use without any compensation and often at crippling expense to the landowners. The problem is that "regulatory takings" are fairly complex legal questions thanks to the Supreme Court's understandable reluctance to rule that all government regulations of land use are takings.

But what's clear, under the Involuntary Good Samaritan test is that this regulation goes "too far" because it effectively seizes control of 33 acres (or more) surrounding an eagle's nest tree and absolutely excludes the owners from using that property. The government is in fact "occupying" the property with a federal eagle-breeding facility, notwithstanding the fact that the eagles chose the tree.

I just want them to buy the land or at least pay rent, that's it.

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

Okay. Um. You first.

[laklak]

Wonder if the ACLU would consider the case? Interesting constitutional question.

[Robert_S]

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

Okay. Um. You first.

I haven't reproduced, I support Planned Parenthood and I've never voted for an anti-choice candidate.

[Seth]

Wonder if the ACLU would consider the case? Interesting constitutional question.

Certainly not the ACLU. They're a leftist/communist organization that only protects CERTAIN civil liberties, private property rights not generally being among them.

If I had $250,000 to spare, I'd sue myself except for the fact that the closing was yesterday and I'm no longer a rancher, so it's somebody else's problem.

[laklak]

Congrats on the closing, time to kick back, eh?

[Seth]

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

Okay. Um. You first.

I haven't reproduced, I support Planned Parenthood and I've never voted for an anti-choice candidate.

Not good enough. I suggest you might provide a better example for us by fulfilling your ideal right away...say on your front lawn, with a butcher knife, in the Japanese fashion.

Now THAT would be a respectable act in support of limiting the human population. Anything short of that is bald hypocrisy.

Nothing personal, but I get heartily sick of the anti-humanists and eco-zealots who talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. Even more so when they talk the talk using modern computer technology. If they want to set a good example, they should be wearing hair-shirts and wandering in the woods eating nuts and berries and turning into bear shit.

But they don't.

[Seth]

Congrats on the closing, time to kick back, eh?

Yeah, although the housing crash and some other shenanigans fucked me on the price, so instead of being fabulously wealthy, I've got enough to provide a comfortable, if modest retirement if I don't blow it all in Vegas on hookers.

Still, I won't be living in a box under a bridge (unless I go to Vegas), so I'm trying to be optimistic.

Now, to begin reviewing motorcycle tours of New Zealand and Australia. And I've got to figure out how to ship my bike.

Any suggestions as to the best time to head down under? If I'm not mistaken, it should be the depths of winter just now, with spring coming up.

September/October?

[Robert_S]

It seems to me that the best long term solution for government intrusion is to try to move the culture, technology and economics to a place where the population dwindles while the prosperity stays the same or improves. It is population density that causes the perceived (real or not) need for more laws.

Okay. Um. You first.

I haven't reproduced, I support Planned Parenthood and I've never voted for an anti-choice candidate.

Not good enough. I suggest you might provide a better example for us by fulfilling your ideal right away...say on your front lawn, with a butcher knife, in the Japanese fashion.

Now THAT would be a respectable act in support of limiting the human population. Anything short of that is bald hypocrisy.

Nothing personal, but I get heartily sick of the anti-humanists and eco-zealots who talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. Even more so when they talk the talk using modern computer technology. If they want to set a good example, they should be wearing hair-shirts and wandering in the woods eating nuts and berries and turning into bear shit.

But they don't.

Oh, you misunderstood. It's nothing to do with my environmentalism, it's my anti-authoritarianism! A smaller number of people can get along with less bureaucracy and fewer rules. The planet could probably sustain a lot more people, just not as easily and freely as some might like.