talkpolitics | Freedom to roam?

airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in

I know most Americans are feeling very protective about private property ("Get off my lawn, hippie!"), but still, I will venture with this question. See, I am interested about the audience's opinion on the so called Freedom to Roam. Some background:

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

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

America is one of the richest countries in terms of variety of beautiful natural landscape, and it has a very good system of national parks and protected areas, granted; but meanwhile, there are vast pieces of that natural treasure under private ownership where access for the public is prohibited. Lots of "No trespassing" signs, and even "Trespassers will be shot on sight". And I am not even talking about the restriction of hunting and fishing activities, which should of course be subject to strict rules aimed at preserving the wildlife populations. I am talking about roaming, and possibly camping.

The anti-right-to-roam argument is that once you have invested your hard earned money to buy land, to maintain it, and pay taxes for it to the government, you are in your right to protect it from intruders whatever means are necessary. It is your own land, period.

The counter argument is that land is inherently un-ownable, and though we may own the right to occupy it through the provisions of the legal system, land should still be generally accessible for all people who want to enjoy the beauty of their nation's countryside.

My personal opinion is that there is some place for compromise between the two camps on this issue, the way it has been arranged throughout much of Europe, especially Scandinavia. I would say the Right to Roam could be deemed applicable only in case: 1) There is a certain acceptable distance from someone's private dwelling, and some types of land that would remain off-limits no matter what; 2) The liability of the owner remains limited or completely eliminated in case of injury or damage or crimes happening on the land that has free access; 3) Corporations and people should both have similar restrictions and/or rights of access. Now, I want to be explicit that realistically, I doubt either (2) or (3) would happen at a federal level in the US any time soon, given the specific local culture, so I would be very cautious about hastening to suggest that it be adopted in the absence of (1).

And because I gave an example of the UK legislation above, let me just shortly explain how I understand their version of the freedom to roam. First of all, private property is generally allowed for exploration by the public, but with a few very important caveats. Contrary to the common misconception, there are only some types of areas of private property that are freely open to the public. There are some very notable exceptions like: crop land, developed areas, areas around homes (especially within certain distance limits), etc. Meanwhile, forests (even outside the national parks and reserves), and open (un-farmed) terrain, is generally what you can explore. Even if it is within the boundaries of someone's private property. Like I said, areas that are developed, farmed or located near private homes, are NOT open for the public, so arguments like "But what if I'm sunbathing in my backyard with my family, and some freaky voyeur approaches my kids and pulls his pants down?", and "If my naughty neighbor comes to nip my roses again, I'm so going to shoot him in the eye!", kind of ring hollow in this case.

As for some other European countries (like Sweden, which has often been given as an example here lately), people are allowed free access to private land for camping as they please - provided there is no damage. In some versions of this rule, they have to ask for permission from the owner of the land first, which the owner has the right to deny (and the already mentioned culture sets in here, most Swedes being extremely respectful of people's love for nature, so in most cases you wouldn't receive a "No" for an answer). As for fishing, hunting, also horseback riding, you'd find out it can be prohibited or restricted more often than not: again, depending on the specifics of the land and the season.

Anyway. Although I can somehow sense from now what the majority of answers would be, still... what's your take on the issue? Freedom to roam, or stay off my lawn?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

mutive.livejournal.com

I think freedom to roam has a lot of challenges.

The first, as you pointed out is liability.

But even let's say that the whole problem of landowners being able to scatter bear traps about their property vs. hikers not being allowed to sue is settled (which I can see being tough), there are other issues.

Campers, for instance, aren't always the neatest, tidiest people. Would I be okay with people hiking on my land who left it totally undisturbed? Sure. But that changes a bit if someone comes in and trashes the place (or even just a lot of respectful people come through, but suddenly my quiet private pond becomes noisy, or there become footpaths through what was once my garden. Plus, what if I wanted my land to be entirely private so that I could throw outdoor orgies or engage in peculiar but not illegal hobbies?).

So it's tough. I'm annoyed at some restrictions, which can get not just annoying, but confusing. (Where does the national park end and someone's backyard begin? In some cases, not 100% clear.) And being able to shoot on sight seems really, really extreme. (And stupid.) But...I can see why we don't let people roam through other people's land, too.

From:

sealwhiskers.livejournal.com

In those systems when camping on private land is allowed (such as Scandinavia), the land owner can still give fines to the campers if they don't clean up and leave things neat after staying. There are such cases in Sweden, often after foreigners have done it, not respecting the rules and how to behave in nature.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Freedom to roam?