Freedom to Roam
- Thread starter Emily27
- Start date
No. Just because I want to protect landowners from folks "roaming" uninvited over their land to access public lands and/ or recreating on private land (as you proposed) does not mean I'm in favor of changing current laws. I do not support changing the current stream access nor beach laws, beaches are public land, and I believe should be, but get to that beach via public access points. If you feel you must cross my property, ask!!!
I have answered your questions, I have still not heard from you who protects and compensates the the private citizen landowner under your scheme.
I have answered your questions, I have still not heard from you who protects and compensates the the private citizen landowner under your scheme.
Yeah I've heard varying things, from some of the stuff I've read it's legally pretty unclear today since judges have been unwilling to give more specific rulings about how to apply the law moving forward as whichever direction they go will piss people off.
The rationale is that waterways were used for commerce, and a public easement for these "roads" were granted to the state at statehood. So, if you could float a log, or a canoe full of beaver pelts, at some point during the year, there is this public easement. Which is very different than the Coast Guard declaring the Columbia as a federally navigable waterway.
What I want to see next is a similar easement to enable corner crossing
But they aren't public land. Plain and simple many miles of Oregon beach are owned by private citizens, not the Public, just as many miles of streams (riverbed and all) in Montana are owned by private citizens. It does not feel like a reasonable answer to the question to just say well I believe they are/should be public land, it's fine to say "well I agree with freedom to roam in some situations and not others" but to say you disagree with it but not acknowledge that some of the access to natural resources we have today is because of it feels weird to me.
I don't think that I can give you a satisfactory answer to who protects private citizens, I am not a lawyer and I don't think I could craft a satisfactory/bulletproof protection from liability and damages, although I am certain that one could be made since we have them for so many other things, and as with most other laws many things would be left up to the interpretation of the legal system and new precedents would be set and decided on a case by case basis.
One thing I would say is that in an imaginary/european world I would imagine that knowing people may be interested in recreating would influence what property you decide to buy and where I think it would be thought of a similar to any type of natural risk. If I was very against the idea of people going on my property I would choose a place that people are unlikely to have as their first choice of recreation, just as if I was very against the idea of my house getting flooded I likely would not buy a house in New Orleans or next to a river.
Here in Washington, it’s a “bolt of shingles”. It was a fun afternoon. I had fun trying to figure out the definition for that one. Ended up calling a shingle mill back east.
A fun project to me would be to make a boat out of a bolt of shingles (maybe lapstrake) and see what waterways I can navigate.
Do you have a picture/dimensions of what you figured out? I found this site but what they refer to as a bolt doesn't seem like it fits
Now you've done it!
TicTokCroc
Sunkist and Sudafed
I saw Bolt of Shingles open for Pantera back in the 90's
TicTokCroc
Sunkist and Sudafed
"The Oregon Beach Bill decreed that all land within sixteen vertical feet of the average low tide mark belongs to the people of Oregon and guarantees that the public has free and uninterrupted use of the beaches along Oregon’s 363 miles of coastline. A state easement exists up to the line of vegetation." (my bold) https://web.archive.org/web/20080105121530/http://www.visittheoregoncoast.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20787
I still do not understand why you think people should be allowed to recreate on a private citizen's private land at no charge, we don't even d that with state or federal lands, you need a pass, pay for a campsite etc. May I come and pitch a tent in your yard without permission? Maybe set up a volleyball net and organize a game with some friends? Again, sounds absurd, but it's what you are proposing. Am I wrong?
The technical wording of the bill though retains private property, it is only made publically accessible through easements. Even though it is advertised as public land it is not it is a network of public land and private easements "According to Pogue P. and Lee V., 1999, "Providing Public Access to the Shore: The Role of Coastal Zone Management Programs," Coastal Management 27:219-237, 56% of the shoreline is publicly owned in Oregon. OCMP staff estimates that 59% of coastal land is publicly owned, but that nearly all of the private beaches are publicly accessible" from this website.
from oregon.gov " it established a permanent public easement for access and recreation along the ocean shore seaward of the existing line of vegetation, regardless of ownership. "
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=faculty this also reinforces that there is current private ownership of beach land
I would also direct you to this site https://projects.oregonlive.com/maps/land-ownership/index.php if you are interested which shows the exact locations of private and public ownership in all of Oregon, including the coast
Last edited:
That's really neat, I was imagining something much bigger.
I does feel like you are not hearing what I'm saying yeah. The places where I have stated an actual proposal past saying freedom to roam sounds cool I have specified that there should be some required distance away from developed areas that people must stay, you are correct that if someone threw a party in my backyard I'd be annoyed but that isn't what I'm recommending.
What I fear is over use of a land owners good nature. Gosh I can't remember the name of the take out on the Yak but it was a non public boat launch. The people in the know knew that you always slip a 20 into the wooden box at the gate and make sure the gate is closed behind you. I heard that got abused and the land owner had to shut it down. So to my point its the whole give an inch take a mile sorta thing.
These are easements for access to the the state of Oregon owned Beaches. If you wander off the easement, you are trespassing. I am not in disagreement with easements to allow access (your can't pitch a tent and camp on the access easements) if the owners are protected; however, you are not talking about easements for access only, you are suggesting free and unfettered access to anyone's privately owned land.
I hear what you're saying, who decides what is the type of land to which you refer (undeveloped, etc) and why does it matter whether it's developed or not? My range is my back yard, I may have cattle on it, maybe sheep or goats; or maybe just native grasses and habitat I want to protect for all my critter friends. I paid good money for this land, I pay yearly property taxes. There are millions of acres of state and federal lands for you, for which we all pay taxes and in many instances for which you need a pass to recreate and camp on (ie, it's not free). Why in heaven's name do you feel you should get to "recreate" on my private property, developed or not, for free and without my permission.
But it is functionally the same whether there is an easement or a change to the rights of property no? Changing the rights of property makes more sense to me because it still leaves landowners with the freedom to develop/change their land and control the other rights established by property ownership without seeking permission from the state, which appeals more to me just from the perspective of lowering the bureaucratic burden on landowners, I imagine its frustrating for landowners on the coast who have to petition to make changes to their property, and a waste of state money. Would the same proposal but with "x" restrictions on what recreation one can do within private land appeal more to you?
In the end, and at the risk of sounding incredibly immature my answer to why I care is because it would be cool. I could add more about equitable access to the environment for all that isn't gatekept by cost or distance from access, the benefits of providing public access from a scientific standpoint in terms of citizen science and documenting unique events, and how lowering the amount that individual spots are used would help lower the maximum damage from overuse that a single access point could receive, but my fundamental interest is easier access to recreation I enjoy. I feel like the total benefit that the public as a whole would get is considerably more valuable than the total benefit that individual landowners get, I'm sure someone could run an economic analysis on the total value derived from publically available vs. privately held goods but I am not smart enough to do it.
For me, it feels like the developed or not matters because proximity to developed land feels very strongly correlated with the possibility of and size of harm to either party. If I think about the likelihood of either harm, such as financial/physical harm by breaking something expensive or emotional harm by being disruptive or loud those all decrease the further you are from developed areas. Definitely not a rule by any means, fences cost money and are at the very edge of someone's property but it seems generally true.
In terms of what specifically counts as developed I also don't know, I think that would have to be determined by lawmakers/lawyers. I could easily see a situation where fencing is counted as development so landowners just put up a bunch of fences everywhere and we are back to square one, so I don't really know what the best answer is. I think it is another situation where courts would determine exactly where the line lies, likely some combination of damages accrued and obviousness of the potential for harm, etc.
a
You still keep stumbling on the NIMBY part. Easements should be paid for to acquire new land for the public to access these places. Private property is private property, ask for permission. It is not your right to access someone else’s property, they paid the note somehow, someway. What really sucks is people moving in with gobbs of cash and reversing those old knock, handshake, thoughtful gift relationships. Only maneuver is for people such as yourself to a.)acquire land b.) lobby your local officials to buy land for easements or c.) support organizations such as the Nature Conservancy (think Silver Creek, cool spot). Unfortunately with all of the filth that the west coast is full of, things will be ruined full of trash and shit for us contributing members of society.
