Freedom to Roam

[DanielOcean]

Yes but suburban, so not really applicable to this conversation, even so, I don't really mind when kids in my neighborhood run through my yard or workers for the city or utility companies come into the backyard without asking to check meters or do powerline maintenance. I recognize that some loss of rights on my part helps the public good as a whole, so it's just meh I don't really care.

if I lived on a more rural property I would be fine with people coming on it if I owned like a couple square miles of woods with a creek in it for instance and people came on to fish or hunt I wouldn't mind.

If I were to answer my own original question I would probably be cool with a bill that just said people are allowed to recreate on any undeveloped (excluding roads and paths) and uncultivated land without the permission of the landowner, as long as they remain "x" distance from obviously developed or cultivated land.

I was raised, and raise my own children that you do not walk on persons yard. I really only have to enforce this on halloween nights. When I see my child attempt to follow the kids trying to cut across the yard to the front door to yell trick or treat I stop her and tell her to walk up the driveway. I then look at the other parents straight faced.
The point I am getting to is that I think the "meh I dont really care" attitude promotes bad behavior and habits. Its like that expression, " if you give them an inch they will take a mile".
Disclaimer: These are just opinions so please do not get "offended"

 

[Jake Watrous]

Would a similar opposition apply to dam removals? Would you oppose a dam removal because landowners bought lakeside property, and their property value will certainly fall post-removal? Is there a point where you think the potential public good outweighs the landowners potential loss?

I’m actually in favor of removing most dams here in Washington State, so that belief trumps the other. But that’s a personal opinion. Great question, and I had to think quite a bit.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Yes but suburban, so not really applicable to this conversation, even so, I don't really mind when kids in my neighborhood run through my yard or workers for the city or utility companies come into the backyard without asking to check meters or do powerline maintenance. I recognize that some loss of rights on my part helps the public good as a whole, so it's just meh I don't really care.

if I lived on a more rural property I would be fine with people coming on it if I owned like a couple square miles of woods with a creek in it for instance and people came on to fish or hunt I wouldn't mind.

If I were to answer my own original question I would probably be cool with a bill that just said people are allowed to recreate on any undeveloped (excluding roads and paths) and uncultivated land without the permission of the landowner, as long as they remain "x" distance from obviously developed or cultivated land.

Not sure I understand why people should be allowed to recreate (for free) on land someone has paid for and pays taxes on. This goes well beyond "freedom to Roam", which allows going from Point A to Point B, not stopping and "recreating", pitching tents, leaving fire rings (and perhaps fire), etc, etc. This is what public lands are for, and you still have to pay for a camping site etc.

And again, I have not heard an answer to who protects the landowner from Liability, who compensates the landowner for damage caused by "roamers" etc.

Maybe I'm just selfish though, my interest is really coming from all the really cool pools and runs I can see on google earth but can't access because some logging company has land there.

I would say you are correct, this seems to me to be a pretty selfish attitude, thinking you should get something for free that a landowner has put an incredible investment into, especially with no protection to that landowner. If you want access so bad, ask so the owner.

 

[krusty]

Interesting discussion that illustrates the complexity of such proposals...in a society that is unable to come to any sort of consensus on even far less contentious issues.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

Maybe I'm just selfish though, my interest is really coming from all the really cool pools and runs I can see on google earth but can't access because some logging company has land there.

Try contacting the logging companies. Often time they have access passes you can purchase, or just straight up allow access for certain activities.

Same goes for private property (non-commercial) - knock on a door or two and you'll find there's a few folks out there that don't mind letting you on their land to hunt/fish pending you've cleared it with them first.

 

[Scottybs]

Yes but suburban, so not really applicable to this conversation, even so, I don't really mind when kids in my neighborhood run through my yard or workers for the city or utility companies come into the backyard without asking to check meters or do powerline maintenance. I recognize that some loss of rights on my part helps the public good as a whole, so it's just meh I don't really care.

if I lived on a more rural property I would be fine with people coming on it if I owned like a couple square miles of woods with a creek in it for instance and people came on to fish or hunt I wouldn't mind.

If I were to answer my own original question I would probably be cool with a bill that just said people are allowed to recreate on any undeveloped (excluding roads and paths) and uncultivated land without the permission of the landowner, as long as they remain "x" distance from obviously developed or cultivated land.

I strongly disagree with suburban not being applicable. The precedent would be disastrous. I’m out of town for work and my security camera caught some handyman drop off a flyer on my front door and walk through our flower beds to cut across to our neighbors, rather than walk back down our driveway. I am still pissed, my wife wouldn’t share his info with me because she is much nicer than I am, but I will be making a call when I get home. Secondly, as innocent as it may seem, I would have a huge problem with the city/county “examining” my property without following the proper channels, no different than law enforcement searching your property without a warrant. As I mentioned earlier, public easements for access are best solution, and there SHOULD be plenty of them.

 

[Salmo_g]

I would say you are correct, this seems to me to be a pretty selfish attitude, thinking you should get something for free that a landowner has put an incredible investment into, especially with no protection to that landowner. If you want access so bad, ask so the owner.

A small technicality here. In WA private timberlands get a special tax break under "Open Space" designation. For that break, those timberlands were open to public access for fishing, hunting, camping, mushroom and berry picking. Somewhere in the last 20 to 30 years that public access disappeared. In large part that was understandable as the rural littering skyrocketed. (An aside: county dumps used to be free. When they began charging $5 or so, rural residents who objected to the fee simply drove onto forest land and dumped their garbage there.) Back to today, the timber companies still get the tax break, but the public doesn't get the access. The exceptions are companies that sell access permits, ranging in cost from $100 to $200. One I have been interested in sells out in less than 10 minutes into the New Year. The upshot is that real access to real public resources has been reduced and even lost because there is no way to get there but through private property in addition to the "corner crossing" issue.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Thanks for that clarification - I would also suggest timberlands leased from the government should have some potential for access; my main concern is more with the private citizen landowner, for which the OP suggests a law allowing free recreation on that land should be allowed, unless I misunderstood, but I don't think I did ("I would probably be cool with a bill that just said people are allowed to recreate on any undeveloped (excluding roads and paths) and uncultivated land without the permission of the landowner, as long as they remain "x" distance from obviously developed or cultivated land.").

Cheers

 

[Scottybs]

Thanks for that clarification - I would also suggest timberlands leased from the government should have some potential for access; my main concern is more with the private citizen landowner, for which the OP suggests a law allowing free recreation on that land should be allowed, unless I misunderstood, but I don't think I did ("I would probably be cool with a bill that just said people are allowed to recreate on any undeveloped (excluding roads and paths) and uncultivated land without the permission of the landowner, as long as they remain "x" distance from obviously developed or cultivated land.").

Cheers

Agreed 100%…

 

[TicTokCroc]

Yea, if you can walk across a cattle ranch in Eastern OR or WA, you should be able to walk into Emily's backyard and admire the birds at the feeder. No double standards.

 

[Emily27]

Not sure I understand why people should be allowed to recreate (for free) on land someone has paid for and pays taxes on. This goes well beyond "freedom to Roam", which allows going from Point A to Point B, not stopping and "recreating", pitching tents, leaving fire rings (and perhaps fire), etc, etc. This is what public lands are for, and you still have to pay for a camping site etc.

And again, I have not heard an answer to who protects the landowner from Liability, who compensates the landowner for damage caused by "roamers" etc.



I would say you are correct, this seems to me to be a pretty selfish attitude, thinking you should get something for free that a landowner has put an incredible investment into, especially with no protection to that landowner. If you want access so bad, ask so the owner.

If I am interpreting you correctly this means you support removing public stream access laws correct?

Landowners put a large investment into buying riverside property and pay taxes on that property and access to the river makes those taxes and initial cost higher, they may even have spent money on habitat restoration projects which if someone were to fish would be directly taking from those investments. That is the argument being used by landowners here

 

[Emily27]

I strongly disagree with suburban not being applicable. The precedent would be disastrous. I’m out of town for work and my security camera caught some handyman drop off a flyer on my front door and walk through our flower beds to cut across to our neighbors, rather than walk back down our driveway. I am still pissed, my wife wouldn’t share his info with me because she is much nicer than I am, but I will be making a call when I get home. Secondly, as innocent as it may seem, I would have a huge problem with the city/county “examining” my property without following the proper channels, no different than law enforcement searching your property without a warrant. As I mentioned earlier, public easements for access are best solution, and there SHOULD be plenty of them.

Sorry, I said not applicable because freedom-to-roam laws would typically not apply/give a wide berth to a developed area which the houses in a typical suburban neighborhood would absolutely be.

Thanks, everyone for engaging! it's really nice to hear everyone's perspectives, I'm gonna try to get back to people but the threads moving a bit faster now so I might miss stuff.

 

[Emily27]

I was raised, and raise my own children that you do not walk on persons yard. I really only have to enforce this on halloween nights. When I see my child attempt to follow the kids trying to cut across the yard to the front door to yell trick or treat I stop her and tell her to walk up the driveway. I then look at the other parents straight faced.
The point I am getting to is that I think the "meh I dont really care" attitude promotes bad behavior and habits. Its like that expression, " if you give them an inch they will take a mile".
Disclaimer: These are just opinions so please do not get "offended"

They aren't my kids I don't think I would raise children, if I had them, to get in other people's space willy-nilly not least for their own safety in the future and not getting into bad situations. It is nice to see the kids running around outside and having fun though, I think if they were my kids I would much prefer it to them staying inside all day looking at phones or playing games or whatever. I feel like most of the older people I know who grew up running through their neighborhoods with the other kids have grown up to be respectful and decent adults though so I'm not sure I see a big connection.

I don't want to swing the thread too far towards how to raise children though, more interested in property rights for this one : )

 

[DanielOcean]

Just sayin. Diggin the intellectual, and respectful manor everyone is comparing and contrasting opinions.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

If I am interpreting you correctly this means you support removing public stream access laws correct?

Landowners put a large investment into buying riverside property and pay taxes on that property and access to the river makes those taxes and initial cost higher, they may even have spent money on habitat restoration projects which if someone were to fish would be directly taking from those investments. That is the argument being used by landowners here

Nope, not saying that. Below the high water mark is public. If you can get to that high water mark via public access, have at it. If you need to cross my private land to get to that high water mark, ask me, you have no right to just recreate on my land, which I believe is what you proposed was OK. May I just cross through your living room, maybe use the kitchen, without your permission, while I'm on my way to the interstate? I know it sounds absurd, but it really isn't far from what you are proposing.

 

[Emily27]

Nope, not saying that. Below the high water mark is public. If you can get to that high water mark via public access, have at it. If you need to cross my private land to get to that high water mark, ask me, you have no right to just recreate on my land, which I believe is what you proposed was OK. May I just cross through your living room, maybe use the kitchen, without your permission, while I'm on my way to the interstate? I know it sounds absurd, but it really isn't far from what you are proposing.

Below the high water mark is only public land on navigable rivers, whatever the state defines as navigable, so I guess a more specific question would be do you support the recent bill in Montana that would have changed their stream access laws, given that it does allow people to wade on private land?

Edit: Or as I asked earlier would you support revoking the Oregon beach bill given that when it was passed around half of Oregon's coastline was/is private land? (I'm not sure what the stat is now, I'm sure a large chunk of the land is still private).

 

[Zak]

Below the high water mark is only public land on navigable rivers, whatever the state defines as navigable, so I guess a more specific question would be do you support the recent bill in Montana that would have changed their stream access laws, given that it does allow people to wade on private land?

I grew up in Vermont as what would now be called a "free range kid." In Vermont, if you are standing in the bed of a stream, you are fine. As long as you do not leave the stream bed (i.e., stay within the ordinary high water mark), you can go and fish where you like. I think that is a good rule.

 

[PhilR]

Below the high water mark is only public land on navigable rivers, whatever the state defines as navigable, so I guess a more specific question would be do you support the recent bill in Montana that would have changed their stream access laws, given that it does allow people to wade on private land?

In Oregon, if the stream could have been used for commerce, the public has access.

From Oregon.gov:
According to a 2005 Oregon Attorney General opinion, on waterways that have not been determined to be state-owned, the public is allowed to use the surface of the waterway for any legal activity unless the waterway isn’t wide, deep or long enough for a boat to pass along it.


Additionally, the opinion states that if the waterway meets the above criteria, the public has the right to use the submerged and submersible land below the line of ordinary high water for water-dependent uses (such as swimming, boating and fishing), and "uses incidental to a water-dependent use such as camping when travelling a long distance and walking while fishing." In cases of emergency or if it is necessary to travel around a navigational barrier, the public may temporarily go above the line of ordinary high water.


When using Oregon’s waterways:

• Always get the landowner’s permission to cross private land to get to the waterway
• Be sure to launch and take out your boat at public facilities, such as parks
• Avoid conflicts with landowners
• If you see trash, pick it up and carry it out, but avoid trespass to do so
• Obey laws and common rules of decency at all times

 

[Emily27]

In Oregon, if the stream could have been used for commerce, the public has access.

From Oregon.gov:
According to a 2005 Oregon Attorney General opinion, on waterways that have not been determined to be state-owned, the public is allowed to use the surface of the waterway for any legal activity unless the waterway isn’t wide, deep or long enough for a boat to pass along it.

Yeah I know, the boat part is Oregon's definition of navigable, I think Washington's is to float a pallet of wood or something similar I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it earlier in this thread. I think Oregon has some weirdness in that it does not define what type of boat, like does it have to fit a drift boat? a kayak? A little origami newspaper boat ? I'm not sure exactly how Montana's works it could be they just define every stream as navigable or some other workaround. In the link I posted a little earlier about a dispute in Colorado rivers were defined as unnavigable because the gradient was too high, even though they would likely be considered navigable in Washington or Oregon.

 

[TicTokCroc]

Yeah I know, the boat part is Oregon's definition of navigable, I think Washington's is to float a pallet of wood or something similar I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it earlier in this thread. I think Oregon has some weirdness in that it does not define what type of boat, like does it have to fit a drift boat? a kayak? A little origami newspaper boat ? I'm not sure exactly how Montana's works it could be they just define every stream as navigable or some other workaround. In the link I posted a little earlier about a dispute in Colorado rivers were defined as unnavigable because the gradient was too high, even though they would likely be considered navigable in Washington or Oregon.

I thought it was if a log could be floated during high water season. Timber industry thing.