Moving Birds Nests-Derail

[Geoff]

I don't believe you have that right in the UK. You are vassals and subjects of your government, not its masters. You have no ultimate recourse, other than revolution, if your government decides to do something to you that you don't like.

Complete bollocks. We simply vote them out, just as you do.

(edit to fix quotes)

[Robert_S]

You think so, more like you have a government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.

Socialist anti-corporatist twaddle.

Socialist Like Andrew Jackson? "No body to kick, no soul to be damned" ("soul to be damned" could be interpreted as no conscience besides the bottom line)

[Gallstones]

We can have guns.
You can't--except for the ones your government thinks it is acceptable for you to have.

We (the vast majority of Brits) don't want them. We like living in a society where they're unnecessary.

We have states rights.

We're not a big or diverse enough country to need them, but we do have separate governments/rights for the constituent countries of the UK, which is broadly similar in scope.

We have medical marijuana and decriminalized possession and use.

If enough people wanted it, that would be changed.

We have no state sanctioned or tax payer supported church.

Sanctioned yes, but not taxpayer supported. It survises on individual donations, like most other churches.

Don't the tax payers support the monarchy?

A tiny amount yes, I believe the Civil List is around £50 million per annum. The monarch actually pays tax on income and capital gains.

Does revenue from tourism pay for all the monarchy?

Easily, yes, though it's difficult to quantify. Monarchy related attractions are high on most foreign tourists' lists.

Do the people of England own Buckingham Palace?

That's complicated. Technically, they're "held in trust" (so can't be sold, for example). I don't see the relevance, though. The question was about being "more closely managed". Sure, we have some different laws, of course, but they're still all passed by a democratic process, just as yours are.
You don't vote on individual pieces of legislation, and neither do we (except for the occasional issue where a referendum is thought to be necessary)..both countries vote for parties that are closest to their own policies (and if anything, we have more choice of parties to vote for, though admittedly only three have much chance of being influential).

You asked for examples of differences. I gave you examples of differences.
Apparently even conditions are different enough that there are differences.
Which is the point I often try to make when we are being criticized for the things we do. There are differences consequent to different conditions. We like having our guns, you don't. We like having states rights etc. These things are not just ordinary, they are part of our national identity, our mindset and our culture.

[Geoff]

But you didn't vote to ban guns, it was forced upon you by your government, and against the will of a good many UK citizens. You can say you're comfortable in your chains, but they are still fetters on your liberty.

Nope, we've never had them (well, not for centuries), so we'd need to vote to have them if we wanted them, which the vast majority don't. It's also worth pointing out that the latest PEW survey showed a roughly even split in your country for/against greater controls.

Not if the King decides to reassert his rights and the Parliament goes along with him.

Charles I was the last time that was tried, around 1650. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

<lots of hypothetical nonsense>

You really have no idea how things work here, do you?

Let me try and simplify it for you:
Politicians want to get votes. They propose policies that they hope will win votes. If successful, they get elected, implying public approval of those policies, which they then implement.

Single issues (like gun control or marijuana use) are simply not important enough to influence enough voters, though their stance on such issues will be stated in their manifesto. If enough voters wanted change on a single issue, they always have an available party to vote for that would support their stance, but that rarely, if ever, happens. The nearest equivalents would probably be the anti-Europe lobby, or the environment crowd, but UKIP and the Green Party only get a tiny fraction of the total vote.

It's called democracy: you may have heard of it.

[Gallstones]

Single issues (like gun control or marijuana use) are simply not important enough to influence enough voters, though their stance on such issues will be stated in their manifesto. If enough voters wanted change on a single issue, they always have an available party to vote for that would support their stance, but that rarely, if ever, happens. The nearest equivalents would probably be the anti-Europe lobby, or the environment crowd, but UKIP and the Green Party only get a tiny fraction of the total vote.

It's called democracy: you may have heard of it.

The single issues are where states rights come in.

[Geoff]

Single issues (like gun control or marijuana use) are simply not important enough to influence enough voters, though their stance on such issues will be stated in their manifesto. If enough voters wanted change on a single issue, they always have an available party to vote for that would support their stance, but that rarely, if ever, happens. The nearest equivalents would probably be the anti-Europe lobby, or the environment crowd, but UKIP and the Green Party only get a tiny fraction of the total vote.

It's called democracy: you may have heard of it.

The single issues are where states rights come in.

Sure, but that misses the point. I can think of few, if any, of our laws, whether at local or national level, that have a significant majority in favour of change or repeal. Politicians, by their very nature, want to get re-elected, so appeasing any such majority would be a natural vote-catcher.

[Robert_S]

Are there any significant differences between the laws in England, Whales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

[Geoff]

Are there any significant differences between the laws in England, Whales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Lots. Remember these were all separate countries until the 18th century, and they've kept a lot of their "old" laws.

I'm no expert, but some examples I know are that in Scotland legal adulthood is 16, not 18, they have 15 on a jury, not 12, courts have a third possible verdict of "not proven", and their property laws are very different.

A quick look at Wikipedia gives this:

Many areas of Scots law are legislated for by the Scottish Parliament, in fields devolved from the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Westminster). Areas of Scots law over which the Scottish Parliament has competency include health, education, criminal justice, local government, environment and civil justice amongst others. However, certain powers are reserved to Westminster including defence, international relations, fiscal and economic policy, drugs law, and broadcasting. The Scottish Parliament has been granted limited tax raising powers.

(note that this seems not dissimilar to the US state v federal system)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

For Northern Ireland:

The Northern Ireland Assembly (Irish: Tionól Thuaisceart Éireann)[1] is the devolved legislature of Northern Ireland. It has power to legislate in a wide range of areas that are not explicitly reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and to appoint the Northern Ireland Executive. It sits at Parliament Buildings at Stormont in Belfast.

Wales is rather different, being more "English" than the other two (sorry, Pappa!), but their devolved powers are on the increase, following a recent referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... _for_Wales

[JimC]

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?

Now (or in a month or so) is the best time to visit northern Australia (eg. the north of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and north Queensland), and then you can drift down south as the southern spring starts... There are magnificent wildflowers in Western Australia in spring...

Unless you want to go skiing in the Victorian Alps - I'm told it is a good season for snow...

[Seth]

But you didn't vote to ban guns, it was forced upon you by your government, and against the will of a good many UK citizens. You can say you're comfortable in your chains, but they are still fetters on your liberty.

Nope, we've never had them (well, not for centuries), so we'd need to vote to have them if we wanted them, which the vast majority don't. It's also worth pointing out that the latest PEW survey showed a roughly even split in your country for/against greater controls.

Utter nonsense. You don't even know your own history. Prior to 1920 Englishmen had a right to bear arms under the common law going back far beyond the 1600s. True firearms regulations began for other than criminals in 1903, and bans on sales of pistols began in 1920, when the English lost their rights, which became privileges subject to the whims and caprices of the police in issuing licenses, which formerly were available on demand over the counter at any post office. It was only in 1968 that general bans, storage regulations and other draconian anti-arms laws really took off.

And polls mean nothing, because our individual right to keep and bear arms is NOT subject to popular democratic decision making. That's why it's a fundamental, natural and unalienable right, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in two recent cases which affirmed the right as being individual and protecting the ownership of a handgun in the home for self defense.

Not if the King decides to reassert his rights and the Parliament goes along with him.

Charles I was the last time that was tried, around 1650. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Easy to say, but back in 1650 the English were still armed. Different story today. All the King has to do is have Parliament and the military on his side and you're just completely fucked.

You really have no idea how things work here, do you?

Let me try and simplify it for you:
Politicians want to get votes. They propose policies that they hope will win votes. If successful, they get elected, implying public approval of those policies, which they then implement.

Single issues (like gun control or marijuana use) are simply not important enough to influence enough voters, though their stance on such issues will be stated in their manifesto. If enough voters wanted change on a single issue, they always have an available party to vote for that would support their stance, but that rarely, if ever, happens. The nearest equivalents would probably be the anti-Europe lobby, or the environment crowd, but UKIP and the Green Party only get a tiny fraction of the total vote.

It's called democracy: you may have heard of it.

And our Founders wisely knew that democracy is high on the list of Very Bad Things, so they fettered and encumbered it so that this is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic that uses some limited democratic processes and guarantees a panoply of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority precisely to prevent what you describe, and what's happened to you.

The problem is, you see, that your government took away your rights as Englishmen back in 1920 without even asking you, by making what was once your right subject to the discretion of a policeman or politician. It's no longer a right, it's a privilege, to be given or taken away at the whim and caprice of someone who gets to decide whether you "need" a firearm, and who, as a group (as police always do when given power) routinely abuse their discretionary authority and decide in THEIR favor (a disarmed public) because it makes THEIR job easier, and fuck you if you need a gun to protect yourself, you're just a statistic to them and they don't give a fuck if you get killed, so long as they can keep their crime stats down.

Englishmen have become servile and cowardly and have given up any claim to being free persons. They are slaves to politicians and the police, and will have a damned hard time reclaiming their independence and liberty if they should ever desire to do so.

[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?

Now (or in a month or so) is the best time to visit northern Australia (eg. the north of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and north Queensland), and then you can drift down south as the southern spring starts... There are magnificent wildflowers in Western Australia in spring...

Unless you want to go skiing in the Victorian Alps - I'm told it is a good season for snow...

Damn. Too soon I think. I don't think I can get the paperwork done that quickly.

[Seth]

Are there any significant differences between the laws in England, Whales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Lots. Remember these were all separate countries until the 18th century, and they've kept a lot of their "old" laws.

I'm no expert, but some examples I know are that in Scotland legal adulthood is 16, not 18, they have 15 on a jury, not 12, courts have a third possible verdict of "not proven", and their property laws are very different.

A quick look at Wikipedia gives this:

Many areas of Scots law are legislated for by the Scottish Parliament, in fields devolved from the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Westminster). Areas of Scots law over which the Scottish Parliament has competency include health, education, criminal justice, local government, environment and civil justice amongst others. However, certain powers are reserved to Westminster including defence, international relations, fiscal and economic policy, drugs law, and broadcasting. The Scottish Parliament has been granted limited tax raising powers.

(note that this seems not dissimilar to the US state v federal system)

It's completely different. In the US, the federal government is a creature of the states and the People, not vice-versa. It is Congress that was granted taxing powers at the federal level BY THE STATES when they ratified the Constitution. The states have always had taxing authority as granted to them by the People. The Congress is strictly limited in what authority it can exercise by the Constitution, and EVERYTHING ELSE by way of government authority is reserved to the states, or to the people themselves.

The primary reason that our federal government is so vast at the moment is due to an egregious series of misinterpretations of the Commerce Clause by our Supreme Court way back in the early 1800s that gave the federal government the authority to regulate any "commerce," whether completely internal to a state or not, that "might affect" commerce among the several states. Those rulings, which were in direct opposition to the intent of the Founders when they drafted the Commerce Clause, allow the many-headed hydra of the federal government to intrude into virtually every aspect of our lives by pretending to control "commerce."

To get back to the OP, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and its predecessor, the Lacey Act, are both based in Commerce Clause authority to regulate the interstate transportation of animal parts.

However, the original purpose and intent of the Founders when they pass the Commerce Clause, which says that Congress shall have the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" was not intended to give Congress plenary control of the economy by regulating any activity that might "affect commerce" (like growing wheat on your own farm for your own use that is never sold...which was made illegal by FDR without federal permission on the notion that if a farmer could grow his own wheat, he wouldn't have to buy wheat at a government-regulated price, and therefore commerce that FDR was trying to control during the Depression would be affected...) it was intended to FREE UP trade between the states by giving Congress the power to mediate and intervene in situations where states were using tax laws and were imposing duties on the transportation of goods from one state, through a state to a third state, which was a commonplace way of tit-for-tat petty bickering among the original 13 states under the Articles of Confederation.

In contemporary terms, in 1789, the phrase "to regulate" had an entirely different meaning, which was "to make regular" not "to control" and it meant that Congress could prohibit states from imposing taxes, imposts and duties on the passage of goods "among the several states," and only that, according to the Federalist Papers and the various correspondences of the authors. They never intended that the federal government would take such detailed and oppressive control of a state's economy through the expedient of regulating commerce "among" the several states.

The Endangered Species act and all of our federal gun control laws are also predicated on the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause by the SCOTUS, which has resulted in serious harm to the concept of federalism, which holds that the central government should be weak and limited in its authority, while the state governments should be powerful.

Thus, our states are not "granted" authority to do anything by the federal government. The federal government exercises its enumerated powers and the states must abide by that authority, but outside of the specific authorities granted by the Constitution to the federal government, the states, and the People, hold all the authority.

[mistermack]

Going back to the OP, I think that getting a court decision in favour of compensation is extremely unlikely.
You base your claim on the assertion that the government is effectively taking your property. That is not proved and very hard to establish.
If I was defending the government in court, I would argue that protecting the Eagles was not done to benefit the government, nor the population, but purely a duty that we ALL inherit when we are born, and that is to defend the environment.

To argue that it is done for the sake of the federal government is really to argue that nothing has any value except a monetary one. In reality, it's a restriction placed on the use of property, similar to planning laws.
If you acquire property with planning restrictions, you have to abide by them and can't expect compensation.
The planning restrictions are there to preserve a certain kind of world, and so are the Eagle laws. Not to materially benefit the state, but to protect the quality of the environment. You are effectively arguing that when you acquire land, you acquire the right to use it in a way that spoils the environment, and should be compensated if you are prevented in doing that.

The other thing that would work against you is that any new law, or new extension to existing law, has to be practical.
If they allowed this, you could not possibly restrict it to Eagles. Once the principle was established, you could apply it to lizards, newts, bushes, grasses, frogs, badgers, anything that had a legal protection.

The number of claims would grow and grow, with potentially millions of petty claims, and the cost of administering it would be gigantic.

No court is going to want to be responsible for a can of worms that size.
.

[Seth]

Going back to the OP, I think that getting a court decision in favour of compensation is extremely unlikely.
You base your claim on the assertion that the government is effectively taking your property. That is not proved and very hard to establish.

Regulatory takings are hard to prove because the Court typically engages in an "ad hoc inquiry" based on the factual circumstances because it has not been able to come up with a bright-line test, such as the Involuntary Good Samaritan test. But the essential question is whether the government has gone "too far" in regulating the use that the owner can make of his property. In my view, effectively barring entry or ANY physical occupation or use of that 33 acre circle under a nest tree, not to mention taking dominion and control of the tree and nest itself (it's just as illegal to "disturb" a nest, whether occupied or unoccupied), is equivalent to the government occupying the property physically itself, using the eagles as its proxy. They have, through regulation, effectively erected a barbed-wire, electrified chain-link fence around the nest tree and the penalty for breaching that barrier is extreme. That they use a "recommendation" backed by a law so vague that ANY "disturbance" whatsoever that affects eagle behavior (and who really knows what will do that to any particular nesting pair) results in a draconian penalty that has the practical effect of simply excluding me, the owner, from that part of my property, using fear of prosecution instead of wire and electricity. But the effect is exactly the same: I don't get to freely use and enjoy nearly 100 acres of my own land (three nest sites, only one occupied at a time, but the other two protected for 10 years) because the government (which is the people) value my property as eagle habitat without my consent.

If I was defending the government in court, I would argue that protecting the Eagles was not done to benefit the government, nor the population, but purely a duty that we ALL inherit when we are born, and that is to defend the environment.

That's not a duty that the government gets to impose on the individual. If it were, cities would not exist, nor suburbs, nor towns, nor roads, nor agriculture, nor any human activity. We'd all have to commit suicide at birth to abide by that duty. Every person has a duty not to HARM the environment in ways that export that harm to others. Thus, one cannot poison the air or land so that the poison leaves your property and harms others, either by air or water. But one can apply poison on one's own land in ways that do not harm others in order to use and enjoy, and profit from one's own property. One can eliminate natural habitat and build a house, or a parking lot. One can do many things that don't "defend" the environment by way of using and enjoying one's own property and the government has little say in that unless it wants to buy it to preserve it. Certainly some regulation is allowed to prevent the export of harm, but the landowner has wide latitude in how he uses and enjoys his property if the concept of private property ownership is to have any true existence or utility.

One of the concepts in takings jurisprudence is the idea that the individual should not be required to bear the burden of providing a public benefit when it should be the burden of the public as well. This is the root concept in the Fifth Amendment proscription on uncompensated takings. Why, for example, should the landowner who owns property the public wants to turn into a park, or a post office, or a road, or a government building be required to bear the economic costs all on his own by having the government simply take his property for the public use? Should not the public purchase what it wants to use for public purposes? That's the intent of the Fifth Amendment.

So, effectively, how does my situation differ from that of the landowner who is being expelled from his land so that the government can build a highway? Both are dispossessed of our ability to use our land by government action. In one case its by physical occupation of the land by the public through the building of a road, in the other it's through regulatory closing of the land to use by the owner to benefit the public's desire to protect eagles...or in other words the public's desire to establish a federally-protected eagle breeding facility, with the location chosen by the eagles. That would be no different in effect from the government coming in and laying claim to the tree and 33 acres around it and building an artificial nest and planting captive eagles on the nest and covering the whole thing with netting to keep the eagles in place.

To argue that it is done for the sake of the federal government is really to argue that nothing has any value except a monetary one. In reality, it's a restriction placed on the use of property, similar to planning laws.

Again, a zoning restriction is a restriction on activity or improvements to a property that applies equally to all, not just to one person. And when a zoning restriction goes "too far" in restricting how a landowner may use his land, it becomes a taking requiring compensation. One of the fundamental rights in the "bundle of rights" one has as a property owner is the right to occupy your land...all of it. One's right to physically walk upon and use and enjoy one's property is an "essential strand" in the theory of property rights. It's closely connected to an equally fundamental right to exclude others. The Court has ruled that when a person's right to exclude others (like the public) is impaired, by requiring him to submit to trespass by others, that is an ipso facto taking that requires compensation and no further ad hoc inquiry is required. That's what the Nollan case in California pointed out, and that's been affirmed in numerous other cases. Likewise, when the property owner is excluded from his own land...not just restricted as to what he may do by way of improvement or agriculture but physically excluded from any use... this too is an ipso facto violation of a fundamental right of property ownership, notwithstanding that it's being done using threats contingent on animal behavior rather than with armed guards and barbed wire.

If you acquire property with planning restrictions, you have to abide by them and can't expect compensation.

But this is not a "planning restriction" because I didn't propose to do anything other than enter upon and use and enjoy my property. I did not propose to cut down the trees, or build houses, or put up carnival rides, I just want to be free to walk upon my own land and tend to my cattle and manage my pastures as necessary to profit from my land. The eagles showed up uninvited, although they were a welcome sight, and suddenly I was physically excluded from 99 acres of my land on threat of prosecution, fine and imprisonment. That's no different than the military coming onto my property and declaring it to be a military training site and erecting barbed wire an setting armed guards to keep me out. When that happens, it's a taking, and compensation is owed according to the Constitution. That the physical occupation is performed by a proxy of the government in the form of a pair of eagles is not really relevant because the practical effect is the same.

The planning restrictions are there to preserve a certain kind of world, and so are the Eagle laws. Not to materially benefit the state, but to protect the quality of the environment. You are effectively arguing that when you acquire land, you acquire the right to use it in a way that spoils the environment, and should be compensated if you are prevented in doing that.

Not at all. In fact, it is BECAUSE I did not use it in a way that spoils the environment, like everyone around me who subdivided and built tract homes did, that the eagles had habitat that was attractive to them in the first place. So where were the restrictions on them? Why were they allowed to use, enjoy and occupy their land freely and I'm not? Why could they cut down trees and build houses and roads and cities, but I'm now expected to give up my land in order that their desire to protect eagles can be effectuated? Again, it's a matter of the individual being required to bear the burden of preserving eagles, which is a burden that rightfully ought to be borne by the entire public, since it is they who insist on preserving them.

The other thing that would work against you is that any new law, or new extension to existing law, has to be practical.
If they allowed this, you could not possibly restrict it to Eagles. Once the principle was established, you could apply it to lizards, newts, bushes, grasses, frogs, badgers, anything that had a legal protection.

The number of claims would grow and grow, with potentially millions of petty claims, and the cost of administering it would be gigantic.

No court is going to want to be responsible for a can of worms that size.
.

The court, in my view, has no choice. They only determine if the law violates my constitutional rights. The economic impacts are not their concern and indeed they are not permitted to consider economic arguments in the adjudication of constitutional rights, that's the concern of the Congress. If the law is so draconian that it opens the government to widespread liability under the Fifth Amendment, then Congress will have to amend or repeal the law to comport with the Constitution. And frankly, that's exactly what needs to happen. If the public wants to take effective possession of private property in order to preserve it as wildlife habitat for endangered species, then the public should be willing to pay to acquire that property in fee simple rather than trying to shift the burden of paying for that preservation to the private landowner, who must now sacrifice sometimes substantial (as in my case) and sometimes complete use and economic value of his land to serve the needs and desires of the public for biodiversity. It's hypocritical and unfair in the extreme for all those people living in houses and cities who are actually responsible for the destruction of wildlife habitat that facilitated THEIR style of living to now complain that the few remaining large landowners like me must sacrifice their economic futures to satisfy the public's need to preserve wildlife habitat. We, of everyone on the planet, are the only ones who have walked the walk when it comes to preserving the environment, which is precisely why the public now wants to take dominion and control of our property through regulations that THEY THEMSELVES are completely exempt from because they have ALREADY DESTROYED their share of that habitat. Do you not see the fundamental unfairness of those who have already destroyed their "share" of habitat demanding that those who have properly stewarded the land all this time and have preserved the remaining habitat continue to do so at the expense of the private property owner and NOT THE PUBLIC? How on earth do you see that as fair and reasonable?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting endangered species and wildlife habitat, but the public has to be willing to pay for what it takes in order to achieve that goal, if it wants to use private, rather than the abundant public lands to do so. That's what the Constitution demands. The ONLY reason that more takings cases are not forcing the government to buy private lands (and it happens sometimes) is because the ESA has a permitting process that allows landowners to work out operating plans and agreements that leave them with at least some remaining reasonable economic value, and the F&WS is careful to meet this standard so that it won't be forced to provide compensation. But the Eagle Act has no such provisions. While one can ostensibly get a permit to "take" an eagle, there is no provision for creating an operating plan that authorizes specific uses that will immunize the landowner from prosecution if he follows that approved plan. That's a major difference, and one that renders the Eagle Act constitutionally suspect and likely invalid.

[mistermack]

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.