Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones for the right to roam on access lands? Because it seems like something that's pretty indefensible as is, either the public should be allowed to responsibly trespass on private land or they shouldn't.
Some of the right of ways in England have existed and been in continuous use since long before recorded history. A better question is what authority does anyone have to close them?
The government definitely, maybe land owners, I don't know a lot about English law. The rights of way that are in continuous use aren't really the subject of this conversation, it's the ones described here that are currently inaccessible.
>Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones
you can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, call them Chesterton's reasons. They need to be balanced against other reasons, and your reasons and my reasons might be different, but that's what our govts do for us, and when enough people are unhappy we change govts.
Qualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and water rights in the western US, for what it's worth.
Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up.
Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.
I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language.
I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights.
This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin.
To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
Very interesting; thank you for linking to it. I quite agree with Thomas that "...by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded". This is essentially the same foundation as the English Common Law for the trial by jury - that a group of 'twelve men good and true' have as much justification for determining right and wrong as does a written document. The jury must be drawn from the community of the accused; otherwise, they would not necessarily be of the same custom as the accused and would, therefore, effectively not be making a judgement in the correct jurisdiction.
The right to roam movement is explicitly about responsible access rights to most of the countryside. As a whole hearted supporter, I agree that the situation is indefensible and needs fixing.
We are essentially excluded from land through centuries old stitch ups intended to exclude the common man. It's stuff that goes back to the Norman conquest when the elite essentially carved up hunting lands for their own benefit, with subsequent enclosure after enclosure that destroyed commons rights.
The intent of the Right to Roam movement is to reclaim some of what was taken from us as a whole.
Americans are used to everything being compartmentalized “if you want to go for a walk drive to the park” but there are people out there that still want to exist and have a sense of real place - the ability to physically move through it is important.
I don't know if this counts as 'purely historic' or not, but I think the pragmatic answer is simply that it's the law. The land was bought by its present owner knowing that the public had a right of way across it. The law could change, but there's no particular reason for it to any more than there is to argue for it to exist from first principles.
Land ownership is an arbitrary right created by the government. It's not a natural right, because natural property rights start from the idea that the fruits of your labor are yours. But because the land was already there before humans, it's not a fruit of anyone's labor. You can have natural rights over the land you are actively using, but you will eventually lose those rights if you stop using the land.
And because land ownership is a right created by the government, the government can define the terms and change them.
And the dominant entity in human societies is the state with military and police forces. If we continue with this line of thought, the state has the natural right to decide who is allowed to use which piece of land, under which terms. And it has also the natural right to change its mind.
Slightly off topic, but related: I'm always interested in the different approach to public "right of ways" in the US (and Canada) versus the UK. Given that the concept of public right of way was well established in the UK before the colonial period, why didn't the colonies recognize rights of way based on well-established use? Based on my limited knowledge of the US and Canada, I'm not aware of any State or Province that recognizes the right of the public to cross private land on established paths/trails in the way that is recognized in the UK.
Well, for one, public rights of way do exist on, and adjacent to, every public road. But that's kind of besides the point.
I think there's probably many reasons, but here's a few I can think of:
1. The trails and such that warrant these rights never existed in the first place.
2. The rights come from long-established customs, which again, never got the chance to get going in the United States.
3. The legal/juridical establishment in the United States tended to care more about protecting the rights of property owners than protecting the freedom to travel (in this limited respect).
There's a lot of legal history there. The US never had feudalism. The overthrow of feudalism resulted in reduced land rights for large landowners.
There's another amusing historical accident - Blackstone.[1] Blackstone's Commentaries[2] are a self-contained four volume set on how the English legal system worked. They had a strong influence on the US legal system. Most of the drafters of the Constitution read them. There were few if any law libraries, but many copies of Blackstone.
Blackstone was a property rights absolutist. He wrote:
"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no."[3]
This is further than English law goes. US law arose from that interpretation. That's the power of writing the most widely read book on the subject.
"(Trespass) signifies no more than an entry on another man’s ground without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. For the right of meum and tuum, or property, in lands being once established, it follows as a necessary consequence, that this right must be exclusive; that is, that the owner may retain to himself the sole use and occupation of his soil: every entry therefore thereon without the owner’s leave, and especially if contrary to his express order, is a trespass or transgression. The Roman law seem to have made a direct prohibition necessary, in order to constitute this injury: “qui alienum fundum ingreditur, potest a domino, si is praeviderit, prohiberi ne ingrediatur.” But the law of England, justly considering that much inconvenience may happen to the owner, before he has an opportunity to forbid the entry, has carried the point much farther, and has treated every entry upon another’s lands, (unless by the owner’s leave, or in some very particular cases) as an injury or wrong, for satisfaction of which an action of trespass will lie; but determines the quantum of that satisfaction, by considering how far the offense was willful or inadvertent, and by estimating the value of the actual damage sustained."[1]
Except for the carve-out for fox-hunting: "In like manner the common law warrants the hunting of ravenous beasts of prey, as badgers and foxes, in another man’s land; because the destroying such creatures is profitable to the public."
For good reason, one can suppose. Wealth flows downstream from the concept of private property whose rights are strongly guarded by law. An "ideal" amount of property rights, if one exists at all, is likely much closer to absolute than zero.
There is the concept of easements. Probably not as familiar to the suburban person, but out in the boonies, it is allowed for you to use another person's property to get to your property if there is no other access to your property. For example when your property doesn't have direct access to a road unless using your neighbor's access. Lots of country properties "share" a dirt road
Noted (I'm actually rural, and have an easement on my own property), but an easement is quite different from a public right of way in the UK. An easement does not create a public right, and (at least in WA state) must be negotiated between the landowners.
There's also easements into greenbelts. There are some places around lakes where you can only access the publicly accessible areas by crossing private property. Usually, there is a designated path for that access, and the property owner cannot block it from public use.
Then you get into the peculiarity of "corner crossing", where four parcels meet at an infinitesimal point. Can you cross the corner and not be considered to have trespassed onto one of the other pieces? It's.... tricky.
It only gets tricky when there are wealthy landowners seeking to monopolize public game lands they have surrounded by private property, otherwise it’s pretty clearly acceptable to cross.
Yeah. I live in at least exurban area and I have some specific easements I negotiated when I bought. And, in practice, I have more. But if the neighboring owner really wanted to put up some barbed wire fences or the one or two owners along the river walk I often take outside of conservation land really wanted to clamp down, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have legal options.
Per another comment, some of it at least is that many people really don't want hunting (or destructive off-road vehicles) on their land but have no problem with the occasional person taking a walk on a more-or-less established path.
Even in the UK, I've had an issue with something basically identified as an item of interest on an OS map and getting yelled at for sticking my nose in a gate.
WA state has a private way of necessity [1] (edit: i had the wrong word here). If my land has no access except through your land, you may not deny me access. Although you're welcome to attempt to negotiate with me to get to something that works well for both of us, but if not, I can do something reasonable.
WA also has easements by traditional access, but it seemed pretty limited and easy for property owners to avoid, when I was looking into it.
Although my understanding (through some personal experience) is that e.g. in Maine it's OK to have only water access. May not still be true but seemed to be in a case I was familiar with.
It's a little more tricky than that. There are implicit public easements that get created merely by a path being open and commonly used. That's pretty close to the right in the UK.
If you can show that you've been using a specific path for years the owner of that path can lose rights to block access. This is why you see some land owners putting up no-trespassing signs and jealously guarding their land and access. They don't want to lose the ability to effectively control their paths. IIRC, this is a common law thing. It's a bit like trademarks in the sense that land owners need to guard their land otherwise they lose a chunk of it.
The squishiness here is I don't think there's a specified amount of time before the public easement is granted.
I suspect that most "real" hiking trails in the US that are not on public land have formal easements of some sort. I observe that around me the trails on conservation land are marked on digital maps and the informal trails on private land are not.
Maine has right to roam, kind of, in a very american way: you can assume you have permission, unless clearly indicated otherwise. This preserves property rights, but only if you want them. Also there is a strong presumption of zero liability for the landowner (AFAIK!), so landowners aren't particularly incentivized to close off their land.
Yea, I think the liability thing is key, at least in the USA. I have no problem in concept with allowing the public to roam on my property (as long as they're not taking or damaging things), but I wouldn't want to allow it if they could sue me and win because they tripped on a rock or something.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I assume that if you trip on a rock or a tree root on a trail on someone's land, suing would be a man bites dog thing--but so could any number of events. Obviously if you deliberately put some hazard of a trail crossing your property, that could be different. (Though probably edge cases--tricky natural hazard on a well-established trail you didn't do anything about.)
Do you know more about the tax incentives in New Hampshire? I'm in Vermont, and wondering if there are established patterns that would work for our town.
Edit: I'd love to hear from anyone elsewhere that offers such incentives as to how they are structured.
Which group of people who were in the Americas had the "right" to the land? The groups that were on the land when Columbus landed? Or the groups that were there when the Pilgrims landed? Or the groups that were there in 1776?
For large swaths of the Americas, these are all different groups, many of which seized the land through violence.
It's something people like to throw out as an argument, but it falls on its face under the most basic of scrutiny. The entire earth was "stolen" many, many times by this definition, making it nonsensical.
You could start with the ones who were forced to sign treaties under the current constitution under duress, or treaties they couldn't read, or treaties that weren't respected.
In Canada, there are so many streams and rivers, lakes, that these are the 'right to roam' areas. There are all sorts of laws for access, and the country was explored by canoe.
And in the winters of 200 years ago, the lakes became frozen roads.
Yet part of it may also be, that land wss apportioned in large, organized chunks in many cases. Given to settlers, with spaces for roads as part of the plan.
Europe had many places where there was no way to get around, for there were no roads!
And in the US, access to waterways isn't guaranteed. I'll have to look up the details, but there are sections of the James River in Virginia which are private and the right to privacy was granted in the colonial era.
I’ve always been profoundly jealous of countries with right to roam laws and dream of a day when we might have some thing similar in the US. Here in the west we have so much public land that is effectively closed to access due to wealthy landowners litigating over stupidities like corner crossings so they can monopolize the use of parcels they don’t own.
On the other hand, in the US you can buy a piece of forest, build your own private cabin in it if you want and put a fence around your property to keep everyone else out. In the country I currently live in (Germany), you cannot.
No, you're allowed to fence your property if you're talking about a lot with a house on it. But if it's a piece of forest you can't. Even if you privately own it, access must be guaranteed for the public.
Oh, and you're not allowed to build any cabins either, even if you own that piece of forest.
However, I'm not certain that that's the case everywhere in Germany or only in some states.
Moreover because most of Germany’s “forests” are man-made… are they not mostly “wooded lots”? The distinction maybe arises from green space preservation policies?
I don't think there are any wooded lots in Germany, at least not in the way you're thinking. If your lot is at least a quarter acre big and some 30 feet wide, it counts as a forest.
A quarter of an acre of trees is a "forest"? Whoa. As someone who grew up amidst a thousand miles of trees, I shall be laughing for a week to myself over such an idea.
Of course, your typical forest is bigger than that even in Germany. This is the minimum size a piece of land with trees on it has to have to be considered a forest by law.
It is mainly artificial. A bit like the zoning codes in the US I think.
There is property where you can build a proper house and live there (requirement is, that there is infrastructure, like water and electricity). Then there are gardens, where maybe a small cabin is allowed (but you may not officially live there). And then there is everything else, where you normally cannot build anything.
California has some strict laws about beach access for everyone and you still see beach-side homeowners trying to fence off the public's access to the beach or putting up illegal signs that say "Private Property, No Beach Access" or something like that
> Here in the west we have so much public land that is effectively closed to access due to wealthy landowners litigating over stupidities like corner crossings so they can monopolize the use of parcels they don’t own.
reply
I just want to note that even with these annoying carveouts, the US has far more federal land than other European countries. There's not really an equivalent to the vast national forests in the US west in Europe. Those countries are essentially 100% allocated and settled.
As a practical matter, you may not be able to live in those vast federal lands given the need to eat, but they certainly exist and--to the degree there's car access--you can probably spend a lot of time there if you want to. Probably more than a lot of European countries if you want to.
I'm not saying it's wrong that some of the federal land is inaccessible, but there is so much BLM land that is accessible that it would take you a lifetime to exhaust visiting all of it.
But also, the corner crossing thing is really dumb. Why did the federal government establish a checkerboard pattern? Either way, they should just eminent domain 20 feet off the corners and call it a day.
Yes, and the purpose of the checkerboard was so that the railroad could earn money by selling it (the government was basically "paying them in land") without having monopoly control of all the land in a given area (due to the checkerboard pattern).
It basically worked, except in wooded areas where the value came from the timber rather than the land.
By land mass for sure but by practicality of access unlikely. Near urban or small towns going on a daily walk in the US is usually limited unless you are willing to get shot at because “muh property”
What a weird idea that you can't walk around small towns in the US without getting shot. There may or may not be good walking paths and sidewalks in many areas but you don't have people with a shotgun waiting for someone to set a toe on their property.
I actually have a pretty nice set of trails that I can access directly from my house. Some is on private land that I don't have legal access to but the idea that someone would just shoot me for walking there (especially without very serious consequences) is laughable. And yes, tons of other trails and parks are very short drives away. I'm not sure walkable access to non-roads/public right-of-ways is commonplace in most parts of the world.
I loved roaming in England. Thinking of the US, how does this relate to squatter's rights? If have the impression that it is risky to let people hang out for too long on your land in the US. It also seems to tie into the problem of homelessness that we have in the US.
It's more than just "hanging out for too long". You have to be clearly occupying the space, and you have to be improving it.
In California, "Adverse possession" requires a lot: You have to occupy a place continuously for 5 years, like how an owner would. You have to pay all taxes on the land for that time. You have to be clearly occupying the land, so it's obvious to all (including the owner). You have to be acting like you are the owner of the land: Getting & paying for electric, water, internet, trash pickup, etc..
Paying the taxes is a very clear bar. That makes sense. I know when I was either buying or selling my last house in Texas I had to sign all these papers that there were no squatters anywhere. Maybe in Texas the bar isn't so clear.
How does it work, paying taxes to a property you do not own? You go there and file out something saying, I want to pay taxes for this place, because I want to own it one day?
In my jurisdiction I make my payments on the county's property tax website without any authentication at all. Put in the address / parcel number, enter my email address and credit card number. They send me a receipt. Anyone could pay it!
I don't know what would happen if I owned a piece of property that I didn't live on, and both I and the adverse posessor tried to pay. Maybe they'd take both payments? Maybe it's a race condition? No idea.
Or what if you only want to pay taxes for the part you are squatting on? You could imagine thousands of acres of a ranch and you only want to pay taxes on the back corner.
I went back to my county's site, and that definitely would not be possible. I doubt that that would be possible anywhere, because the owner would typically get a single tax bill for the entire parcel-of-record.
Maybe there's a legal mechanism for carving off a piece of a larger property that you've been "openly and notoriously" squatting for the requisite amount of time. If so, you'd pay the tax bill post facto.
But... I don't really know anything, let alone cross-jurisdictionally. Those are educated guesses.
I think this is a situation of nice in theory harder in practice. Take a look at national and state parks in the US, for the most part people are pretty good, but then again they have police forces /rangers, and there is a reason.
On my family’s farm, the whole place was posted: “no trespassing/no hunting” yet we’d have people out in a pasture trying to pet farm animals or horses or find deer stands and trash (mostly beer cans in the woods), or people who would help themselves to our raspberries/apples etc., not to mention the amount of trash we’d find and clean up along our road frontage. I can’t believe how much worse it would be if people felt entitled to be there.
I’m generally aligned with principle of right to roam, but I think it’d be a nightmare in practice. + I can’t even think about the associated liability when some person gets kicked by horse or gets shocked by an electrical fence etc.
I don’t think the right to roam is necessarily the same thing as you portray as the right to “hang out”. There are many places in the US where property lines make impenetrable barriers to public land. Your farm might have fences that share a side with your neighbors, and then theirs, and so on for miles even if there is a national park behind you. Americans have such a preoccupation with “muh property” that this is seen as totally normal and acceptable but it really shouldn’t be.
I’m pretty sure it’s exactly that - Scotland’s right to roam includes limited commercial activities (bike tours/hiking tours) as well as camping. It’s not just cutting across someone’s field to access a park
lol - why are you talking about guns (I think your bias is showing) - moving the goal posts is not exactly sound rhetoric so people can “hang out” (e.g. camp) just not everywhere
People do not want to trespass on private land here - they are upset that they have to trespass private land, to reach the land where they have the right to roam. But they are usually surrounded by fences of private land.
"In 2000 the Countryside and Rights of Way Act gave people a right to roam over certain landscape types, such as mountains, moorland, heathland, downland and commons.
However, the campaign group Right to Roam argues that this landscape – known as “access land” and covering about 8% of England – is often surrounded by farmed fields and other privately owned landscapes, creating inaccessible “islands” of free-to-roam land."
My point is not about trespassing but rather “responsible access” - people still feel ok not acting responsibly (while trespassing) if you increase the number of people accessing land you are by definition going to increase the number of people acting “irresponsibly” (there is a zero percent chance that 100% of people act responsibly)
If you have a direct way through the private land, maybe even fenced to both sides if you feel threatened - then this would not be a issue here.
But irresponsible people are a general problem. Often it is just mere ignorance, though. Many people simply do not know for example how to .. go to the toilet in a forest. Even when you do not have a shovel with you, with a wooden stick or stone, one can make a hole deep enough to cover all of your buisness. And suddenly all the trees next to the major walking paths would not be covered in shit and toilet paper anymore. And that you do not drop your garbage wherever you stand, is a deep rooted sociological problem. One for me starting with the stupid smoking ad campaigns, where the cool cowboy flicks away his cigarette. And where it lands, the plastic will remain.
Yes. Here in the western U.S., some public lands near populated areas close during the summer, because of extreme fire danger. Having larger crowds camping in the woods raises the danger for everyone, even with the supervision of the forest service. It'd be insanity to ignore trespassers on private lands in summer.
This discussion reminds me of the "green corridors" specifically created over highways and such so that wildlife doesn't get stranded on islands (which is often a last step before extinction).
Sounds like one could... erm, "kill two birds with one stone" here ?
These limitations are difficult to understand.
I guess that lords and landowners hsd to repress the peasants in the uk with all possible means but.. this is silly.
Here,in Estonia, everyone can walk on anyones land unless it is someones private home or its surrounding yard (lawn, fields, etc).
You can walk, hike, collect berries and mushrooms for private use everywhere (unless it is on an industrial scale).
If your piece of land is on a sea or lake side or a river, then you must provide access to it, 5 metres from the waterline must be acessible for everyone and can't be fenced off.
I once saw a news item from the uk where someone from Latvia was collecting mushrooms, the land owner didn't like this and the mushroom gathrer had to pay a big fine. Even though nobody was stolen from since the people in the uk don't know anything about wild mushrooms and thry would just rot and go bad. Kind of absurd
The Czech Republic has mostly the same system, from my understanding, and certainly doesn't have a low population density. You can't walk a few kilometres in a line without hitting a farmhouse or village. I consider this freedom a part of the local culture and haven't heard about any abuse that would warrant discussion of the system itself (as opposed to punishing individual wrongdoers).
I, personally, think you can have nice things like this and they will not get abused. If the right to forage mushrooms on a non-industrial scale, or to walk along the shore next to a house without disturbing the inhabitants is given, in my experience people will respect the limitations.
It appears that the laws where I live are quite similar to those in Estonia in this aspect, and I have never heard of any real abuse.
Depends where you live, optimistically. Many public lands in the US have a policy that you can camp there for free. I've used a lot of these sites. Very often, they're fucking gross. Styrofoam and beer cans overflowing from the firepit is common. At one site I cleaned up a turd that could have been from a big dog, but was suspiciously human-sized. This happened all over the country. Many national forests now make their own exceptions to the free camping rule, and I have little doubt it's in response to this rampant abuse. The abusers are out there.
This is also a cultural thing. Compare the US to Australia for example, Australia is often remarked as very clean in comparison and the culture in Australia is to hold onto trash until it can be placed in the nearest trash bin and everything remains relatively clean in comparison (whether in urban areas or campgrounds).
Well, yes, culture is the main factor by which where you live affects cleanliness.
But the other problem in the US is that we don't have just one culture. Anyone who talks in public advocates the same pack-it-out approach to trash. That's the practice in the self-consciously outdoorsy subculture. But the people who leave trash in public campgrounds, I suspect anyway, live in an entirely different world with no realistic communication channels between them. Application to national politics is left as an exercise.
So people with disposable income leave less trash, but poor folk who go camping leave more trash behind? On the other hand you have Burningman (lots of disposable income) with at least stated goal of not leaving anything behind but drive in with gas guzzling large RVs or fly in with more gas guzzling airplanes... I don't know who is worse.
> I, personally, think you can have nice things like this and they will not get abused.
Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's much easier for me to think of counterexamples than supporting examples. Hikers leave garbage on trails all the time. Even dog owners let their pets leave little presents for other people to take care of. I love right to roam laws, but I can see the other side too. I think we have to weigh the tradeoffs and accept that there's a cost—one that may be outweighed by the benefits, surely—not deny that any costs exist.
> You can have nice things like this till they get abused.
That can be interpreted both ways. Keeping people off the land is also a type of abuse, as is misuse of the land by a large amount of people roaming there.
Do you mean the border to Russia? If they wanted to be in a white ethno state full of racist people, maybe not crossing could also be a good-enough solution. Not perfect, but close enough.
Canada has "Crown land," which is public for people to use, but maps aren't great, and I understand that much of it is not accessible. These rules will fall, as populations shift. I live in a rural area close to a city with massive immigration (we're one the highest growth countries in the world right now), and Western norms and conventions that make rural life secure and viable, which facilitated a lot of land and public space use - are absolutely not universal.
To respond, I've just bought a drone that dissuades people from tresspassing, loitering, and lining the roadway in front of my house at night, but tech is just a temporary measure. These roaming and public space laws are at the cusp of the conflict of demographic change. Rural life is viable because of the norms around space and privacy, and if we introduce urban security issues to rural communities without also adapting the laws to mitigate their effects, it will destroy that way of life completely.
Specifically, we have groups of men driving 30 mins north of the suburbs to hang out on country back roads at night by the dozen because, in their words, "nobody lives here!" Some of their familiar cars were featured in a recent story about a large extortion racket bust. There has also been a dramatic increase in home invasions in the region, and when a group of ten men stand out in front of your house in the middle of the night when you are 20mins from the nearest town with a police station, one is reminded of simpler times.
Let alone some of the city activists literally bussing kids out of cities to cover rural areas in crappy graffiti. I have it on drone footage and even spoke with them directly. It's very much a thing. Some nonsense about "being present."
Everybody knows there is change afoot and it just needs to be managed effectively.
While I don't know what that means, if it's about some political thing, I probably don't care either. There are real issues with public access to land in the UK and the rest of the world that are being forced by demographic change, and addressing them clearly will mitigate a lot of the risks associated with them.
Likely they know perfectly well that junior hockey players, farmers, and all sorts of folks have been hanging out in the country in groups of 10-20 young men for decades drinking, partying and vandalizing things. However, now that its south-asians, they are deeply uncomfortable enough to harass them with a drone, but they can't say any of that out loud.
When you do something because the people who resent it don't have recourse or can't defend themselves, that's abuse and predatory behavior, which is pretty sick, yet consistent with the sort of people who accuse others of racism.
It's not about race, it's about numbers, and whether they are residents or part of the communities whose space they occupy because they don't see consequences here, whereas there are consequences for them in their own communities where people know them.
The US state of Washington won't allow the creation of "island" properties. A landowner (including governments) can't subdivide a parcel of land unless there is public right-of-way to all the divided parcels. Right-of-way isn't a parcel; although it theoretically belongs to the government it can't be sold.
This makes it impossible for this problem to happen in the first place.
132 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadyou can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, call them Chesterton's reasons. They need to be balanced against other reasons, and your reasons and my reasons might be different, but that's what our govts do for us, and when enough people are unhappy we change govts.
Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up.
Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.
I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights.
This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
We are essentially excluded from land through centuries old stitch ups intended to exclude the common man. It's stuff that goes back to the Norman conquest when the elite essentially carved up hunting lands for their own benefit, with subsequent enclosure after enclosure that destroyed commons rights.
The intent of the Right to Roam movement is to reclaim some of what was taken from us as a whole.
And because land ownership is a right created by the government, the government can define the terms and change them.
The fact humanity has formalised that dominance into our own bureaucratic forms is merely stylistic.
But I suppose there is some philosophical difference, as to whether or not human actions are part of the natural world.
I think there's probably many reasons, but here's a few I can think of:
1. The trails and such that warrant these rights never existed in the first place. 2. The rights come from long-established customs, which again, never got the chance to get going in the United States. 3. The legal/juridical establishment in the United States tended to care more about protecting the rights of property owners than protecting the freedom to travel (in this limited respect).
There's another amusing historical accident - Blackstone.[1] Blackstone's Commentaries[2] are a self-contained four volume set on how the English legal system worked. They had a strong influence on the US legal system. Most of the drafters of the Constitution read them. There were few if any law libraries, but many copies of Blackstone.
Blackstone was a property rights absolutist. He wrote:
"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no."[3]
This is further than English law goes. US law arose from that interpretation. That's the power of writing the most widely read book on the subject.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_En...
[3] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5....
"(Trespass) signifies no more than an entry on another man’s ground without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. For the right of meum and tuum, or property, in lands being once established, it follows as a necessary consequence, that this right must be exclusive; that is, that the owner may retain to himself the sole use and occupation of his soil: every entry therefore thereon without the owner’s leave, and especially if contrary to his express order, is a trespass or transgression. The Roman law seem to have made a direct prohibition necessary, in order to constitute this injury: “qui alienum fundum ingreditur, potest a domino, si is praeviderit, prohiberi ne ingrediatur.” But the law of England, justly considering that much inconvenience may happen to the owner, before he has an opportunity to forbid the entry, has carried the point much farther, and has treated every entry upon another’s lands, (unless by the owner’s leave, or in some very particular cases) as an injury or wrong, for satisfaction of which an action of trespass will lie; but determines the quantum of that satisfaction, by considering how far the offense was willful or inadvertent, and by estimating the value of the actual damage sustained."[1]
Except for the carve-out for fox-hunting: "In like manner the common law warrants the hunting of ravenous beasts of prey, as badgers and foxes, in another man’s land; because the destroying such creatures is profitable to the public."
[1] https://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes...
For good reason, one can suppose. Wealth flows downstream from the concept of private property whose rights are strongly guarded by law. An "ideal" amount of property rights, if one exists at all, is likely much closer to absolute than zero.
or you can make it a national park and put a surveyor's mark for people to come and visit.
TIL this is a real thing. I thought it was a HN thought experiment.
Per another comment, some of it at least is that many people really don't want hunting (or destructive off-road vehicles) on their land but have no problem with the occasional person taking a walk on a more-or-less established path.
Even in the UK, I've had an issue with something basically identified as an item of interest on an OS map and getting yelled at for sticking my nose in a gate.
WA also has easements by traditional access, but it seemed pretty limited and easy for property owners to avoid, when I was looking into it.
[1] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=8.24&full=true
If you can show that you've been using a specific path for years the owner of that path can lose rights to block access. This is why you see some land owners putting up no-trespassing signs and jealously guarding their land and access. They don't want to lose the ability to effectively control their paths. IIRC, this is a common law thing. It's a bit like trademarks in the sense that land owners need to guard their land otherwise they lose a chunk of it.
The squishiness here is I don't think there's a specified amount of time before the public easement is granted.
With private, the agreement is by - or between - private landowner(s).
With public, it's between every applicable private landowner, and the governing authority.
All thanks to the hunting lobby, I expect.
Edit: I'd love to hear from anyone elsewhere that offers such incentives as to how they are structured.
For large swaths of the Americas, these are all different groups, many of which seized the land through violence.
It's something people like to throw out as an argument, but it falls on its face under the most basic of scrutiny. The entire earth was "stolen" many, many times by this definition, making it nonsensical.
https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties
Because that would have been at odds with colonists' goals of seizing the land from the people whom it previously belonged to, and who were using it.
And in the winters of 200 years ago, the lakes became frozen roads.
Yet part of it may also be, that land wss apportioned in large, organized chunks in many cases. Given to settlers, with spaces for roads as part of the plan.
Europe had many places where there was no way to get around, for there were no roads!
Is it really true that nobody in Germany is allowed to fence their property?
Oh, and you're not allowed to build any cabins either, even if you own that piece of forest.
However, I'm not certain that that's the case everywhere in Germany or only in some states.
There is property where you can build a proper house and live there (requirement is, that there is infrastructure, like water and electricity). Then there are gardens, where maybe a small cabin is allowed (but you may not officially live there). And then there is everything else, where you normally cannot build anything.
I just want to note that even with these annoying carveouts, the US has far more federal land than other European countries. There's not really an equivalent to the vast national forests in the US west in Europe. Those countries are essentially 100% allocated and settled.
But also, the corner crossing thing is really dumb. Why did the federal government establish a checkerboard pattern? Either way, they should just eminent domain 20 feet off the corners and call it a day.
It basically worked, except in wooded areas where the value came from the timber rather than the land.
In California, "Adverse possession" requires a lot: You have to occupy a place continuously for 5 years, like how an owner would. You have to pay all taxes on the land for that time. You have to be clearly occupying the land, so it's obvious to all (including the owner). You have to be acting like you are the owner of the land: Getting & paying for electric, water, internet, trash pickup, etc..
So, there's a high bar that has to be met.
I don't know what would happen if I owned a piece of property that I didn't live on, and both I and the adverse posessor tried to pay. Maybe they'd take both payments? Maybe it's a race condition? No idea.
Maybe there's a legal mechanism for carving off a piece of a larger property that you've been "openly and notoriously" squatting for the requisite amount of time. If so, you'd pay the tax bill post facto.
But... I don't really know anything, let alone cross-jurisdictionally. Those are educated guesses.
On my family’s farm, the whole place was posted: “no trespassing/no hunting” yet we’d have people out in a pasture trying to pet farm animals or horses or find deer stands and trash (mostly beer cans in the woods), or people who would help themselves to our raspberries/apples etc., not to mention the amount of trash we’d find and clean up along our road frontage. I can’t believe how much worse it would be if people felt entitled to be there.
I’m generally aligned with principle of right to roam, but I think it’d be a nightmare in practice. + I can’t even think about the associated liability when some person gets kicked by horse or gets shocked by an electrical fence etc.
[1]https://www.skyhookadventure.com/blog/scotland-right-to-roam...
[2] https://www.morton-fraser.com/insights/right-roam-scotland
“Camping is not permitted on enclosed farmland, cultivated fields, or land around houses.”
Nobody is trying to steal anyone’s land or gun collection here.
"In 2000 the Countryside and Rights of Way Act gave people a right to roam over certain landscape types, such as mountains, moorland, heathland, downland and commons.
However, the campaign group Right to Roam argues that this landscape – known as “access land” and covering about 8% of England – is often surrounded by farmed fields and other privately owned landscapes, creating inaccessible “islands” of free-to-roam land."
But irresponsible people are a general problem. Often it is just mere ignorance, though. Many people simply do not know for example how to .. go to the toilet in a forest. Even when you do not have a shovel with you, with a wooden stick or stone, one can make a hole deep enough to cover all of your buisness. And suddenly all the trees next to the major walking paths would not be covered in shit and toilet paper anymore. And that you do not drop your garbage wherever you stand, is a deep rooted sociological problem. One for me starting with the stupid smoking ad campaigns, where the cool cowboy flicks away his cigarette. And where it lands, the plastic will remain.
Sounds like one could... erm, "kill two birds with one stone" here ?
In unrelated news, I’m currently looking for investors to purchase a surplus LCAC[1] for midnight beach outings.
[0] https://www.kqed.org/science/1955623/the-neverending-battle-...
[1] https://youtu.be/5Tj9KU8q8rk
Here,in Estonia, everyone can walk on anyones land unless it is someones private home or its surrounding yard (lawn, fields, etc).
You can walk, hike, collect berries and mushrooms for private use everywhere (unless it is on an industrial scale).
If your piece of land is on a sea or lake side or a river, then you must provide access to it, 5 metres from the waterline must be acessible for everyone and can't be fenced off.
I once saw a news item from the uk where someone from Latvia was collecting mushrooms, the land owner didn't like this and the mushroom gathrer had to pay a big fine. Even though nobody was stolen from since the people in the uk don't know anything about wild mushrooms and thry would just rot and go bad. Kind of absurd
You can have nice things like this till they get abused.
It appears that the laws where I live are quite similar to those in Estonia in this aspect, and I have never heard of any real abuse.
But the other problem in the US is that we don't have just one culture. Anyone who talks in public advocates the same pack-it-out approach to trash. That's the practice in the self-consciously outdoorsy subculture. But the people who leave trash in public campgrounds, I suspect anyway, live in an entirely different world with no realistic communication channels between them. Application to national politics is left as an exercise.
Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's much easier for me to think of counterexamples than supporting examples. Hikers leave garbage on trails all the time. Even dog owners let their pets leave little presents for other people to take care of. I love right to roam laws, but I can see the other side too. I think we have to weigh the tradeoffs and accept that there's a cost—one that may be outweighed by the benefits, surely—not deny that any costs exist.
That can be interpreted both ways. Keeping people off the land is also a type of abuse, as is misuse of the land by a large amount of people roaming there.
Improved land had has an investment in time and money to make it productive one way or another.
Like If someone bought and put a fenced in corn field or tract house in Yosemite valley, it would be “improved land” by the usual definition
To respond, I've just bought a drone that dissuades people from tresspassing, loitering, and lining the roadway in front of my house at night, but tech is just a temporary measure. These roaming and public space laws are at the cusp of the conflict of demographic change. Rural life is viable because of the norms around space and privacy, and if we introduce urban security issues to rural communities without also adapting the laws to mitigate their effects, it will destroy that way of life completely.
Let alone some of the city activists literally bussing kids out of cities to cover rural areas in crappy graffiti. I have it on drone footage and even spoke with them directly. It's very much a thing. Some nonsense about "being present."
Everybody knows there is change afoot and it just needs to be managed effectively.
But thats just conjecture.
It's not about race, it's about numbers, and whether they are residents or part of the communities whose space they occupy because they don't see consequences here, whereas there are consequences for them in their own communities where people know them.
This makes it impossible for this problem to happen in the first place.