Freedom to Roam

[Emily27]

I was reading about freedom to roam laws recently I forget where but here is the Wikipedia article on it. They are apparently very common in Europe and basically allow people to move through private land as long as they follow what are basically leave no trace principles, they all vary in the specifics of what people are allowed to do in terms of fishing, camping, foraging, etc. The best example in the PNW is the Oregon Coast which was all made public land back in the 60's so one could hypothetically walk all the way from California to Washington, although I think the majority of Freedom to Roam laws do not convert private land to public land but instead just mandate that access has to be allowed to the public on any undeveloped/unfarmed/unimproved land and onto private roads. I think other similar laws on a more confined scale are stream access laws in Oregon that allow us to move freely up and down navigable rivers as long as we remain below the high water mark.

I was wondering what the board's opinion of implementing freedom to roam laws here is/would be, I can personally think of a lot of spots in the Cascades and Coast range that I would love to fish or forage but can't because a forestry company wants to log the spot of the forest I would like to walk through twenty years from now and I think that if I was handed a petition for such a law I would happily sign. Do you think that a law like that could pass and be implemented smoothly? What stipends/restrictions do you think would have to be added for you or the general public to be comfortable with it?

 

[Brian in OR.]

I think it would be a shit show if enacted...

 

[Emily27]

I think it would be a shit show if enacted...

Could you expand more?
What are your concerns? what do you think would have to be changed to enact it, do you think our current stream access/beach access laws are okay or also a shit show?

 

[Jake Watrous]

I was reading about freedom to roam laws recently I forget where but here is the Wikipedia article on it. They are apparently very common in Europe and basically allow people to move through private land as long as they follow what are basically leave no trace principles, they all vary in the specifics of what people are allowed to do in terms of fishing, camping, foraging, etc. The best example in the PNW is the Oregon Coast which was all made public land back in the 60's so one could hypothetically walk all the way from California to Washington, although I think the majority of Freedom to Roam laws do not convert private land to public land but instead just mandate that access has to be allowed to the public on any undeveloped/unfarmed/unimproved land and onto private roads. I think other similar laws on a more confined scale are stream access laws in Oregon that allow us to move freely up and down navigable rivers as long as we remain below the high water mark.

I was wondering what the board's opinion of implementing freedom to roam laws here is/would be, I can personally think of a lot of spots in the Cascades and Coast range that I would love to fish or forage but can't because a forestry company wants to log the spot of the forest I would like to walk through twenty years from now and I think that if I was handed a petition for such a law I would happily sign. Do you think that a law like that could pass and be implemented smoothly? What stipends/restrictions do you think would have to be added for you or the general public to be comfortable with it?

They’d also have to enact laws protecting landowners from jackasses who might drown themselves in private swimming pools, etc, and then sue the pool owners. Or having strangers walk through my backyard whenever they felt like it. This, coupled with the increasing strictures limiting police response and an increasing number of homeless, seems like it would only cause problems.

Also, there have been anti-littering laws my entire lifetime but litter hasn’t gone away. Wouldn’t want folks littering my property like they do the public access places.

What I think they should do, though, is change the laws/lack of enforcement that allow landowners to illegally deny access to public access/right of ways and then after a period of time assert ownership of them because of disuse. And to stop the crap where people get in trouble using ladders to go from corner to corner of public land.

 

[troutpocket]

Maintaining recreation areas with public access is expensive. Seems there’s a lot of entitlement mindset out there resulting in abuse of property. But with resources, high quality rec sites can be created. For example, the mid Columbia River has several recreation sites maintained by the PUD’s as part of their mitigation for operating dams. Those places are pristine because it’s a condition of their agreements and generates good faith in the community. Check them out when you’re in the area. The US Army Corps does similar stuff in the lower river. Point being, those are the outliers. Without resources, public access often doesn’t end well. Maybe things are different in Europe.

 

[TicTokCroc]

Sorry, that's the first thing that came to mind.

I sure wouldn't like to pay property taxes on land that I'm responsible for and have anyone able to traipse across at their leisure.

Also they can't even keep the homeless garbage camps cleared out around here.

River access and access to corporate timberland needs looking at though.

 

[JACKspASS]

They’d also have to enact laws protecting landowners from @JACKspASS who might catch every steelhead in the river

This is the most likely outcome folks, not good....not good at all

 

[Jake Watrous]

Jake said:
They’d also have to enact laws protecting landowners from @JACKspASS who might catch every steelhead in the river...

...if I was good at all.

Shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Not everyone can be me.

 

[DerekWhipple]

While I believe in the idea, I don't think it would work out here because of American culture. I mean, it's bad enough with people going places they aren't supposed to anyway (public or private) and trashing them up.

Also, it's important to remember that pretty much every other European country has all river/stream fishing rights owned by a private party. Sure you can cross private property to fish a creek, but you still gotta pay an individual or club to fish it, even if it's right next to a road.

 

[Scottybs]

While I believe in the idea, I don't think it would work out here because of American culture. I mean, it's bad enough with people going places they aren't supposed to anyway (public or private) and trashing them up.

Also, it's important to remember that pretty much every other European country has all river/stream fishing rights owned by a private party. Sure you can cross private property to fish a creek, but you still gotta pay an individual or club to fish it, even if it's right next to a road.

And there you have it… everyone wants to be like Europe now… but they either are unaware or knowingly leave a few crucial details out.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

If land is posted, that needs to be/must be respected. People paid good money for the land and pay property taxes on that land (not to mention the liability issues). Having been a land owner, and hopefully being one again, if folks believe they need to cross my land, they can ask for permission, if not, they can expect to be confronted.

Get off my lawn!!!!!

Cheers

 

[Tom Butler]

basically allow people to move through private land as long as they follow what are basically leave no trace principles, they all vary in the specifics of what people are allowed to do in terms of fishing, camping, foraging, etc. ..............................just mandate that access has to be allowed to the public on any undeveloped/unfarmed/unimproved land and onto private roads.

Why do we allow something to be private? Is there a certain sense of security?
What is the definition of unused, from who's point of view?
Is the individual the most important or is the public/government most important?
Also, this would be a public taking, a diminishing of a private right. The law states the private party must be compensated. Expensive?
Are we really good with government mandates?
Are we entitled to something we don't have just because we want it?
Part of me likes the idea. But the reality is a certain portion of the population sees unused land and thinks it theirs to occupy and use, and often this leads to degradation in the process. Some folks don't care enough about others to "leave no trace".

 

[Tallguy]

Also, this would be a public taking, a diminishing of a private right. The law states the private party must be compensated. Expensive?

Are you sure about this?? If you go by a strict originalist interpretation of US law (often asked/promoted by Supreme Court candidates), trespassing is a quite modern invention (I forget the details, but I don't think trespassing laws existed until after the Civil War) and thus unlawful with respect to original intent. Most all early court decisions and precedents long established that nothing was "taken" by people passing over the land, therefore nothing was owed to any private parties and no rights of exclusion by property owners existed.

My family owns a decent piece of land in NH that has long remained unposted and traversed by others, hunted on, etc. When I see how trespass laws have been strengthened and abused to exclude people from land, rivers, etc in so many places, I still wish early U.S. law had better codified common law practices of the time when the concept of trespassing was basically unthinkable. We may have even developed better cultures of care and respect and use around roaming wild lands without the fences and signs..

 

[Emily27]

I guess a good follow-up question for the people who would oppose more extensive freedom-to-roam laws is do you think that current ones should be removed? Such as Oregon beach bill or our stream access? If the downsides of more access outweigh the benefits in your mind do you think that also applies to current access?

 

[Jake Watrous]

I guess a good follow-up question for the people who would oppose more extensive freedom-to-roam laws is do you think that current ones should be removed? Such as Oregon beach bill or our stream access? If the downsides of more access outweigh the benefits in your mind do you think that also applies to current access?

I'm for keeping public things public, and I think there's a big difference between being opposed to opening private property to all manner of folks, and taking away public access to established public things. Public parks, cities, municipalities, what have you all hire people specifically for the purpose of cleaning up after and repairing the damage caused by members of the public and yet it seems like I can go to any park and find destruction, vandalism, and litter--it's often a losing battle but one we have as a society agreed to engage in as a cost of the park/access. Freedom-to-roam laws, to me at least, would mean someone would have to hire people to do the same on private property.

Much better, in my mind, is for a person to individually approach the landowner on a case-by-case basis. I've made arrangements with folks over the years to allow me access to/through their private property and the most it has ever cost me was when I've offered to share some of any salmon caught with a fellow who owns/owned 1/4 mile of beach on Dabob Bay. If you're respectful to the owners and the property, a lot of folks will be happy to allow access to/through--especially to fly anglers, for some reason.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

I guess a good follow-up question for the people who would oppose more extensive freedom-to-roam laws is do you think that current ones should be removed? Such as Oregon beach bill or our stream access? If the downsides of more access outweigh the benefits in your mind do you think that also applies to current access?

Think we might be mixing things up here. Oregon beaches do not fall under freedom to roam. The Oregon beaches are publicly owned following passage of the Oregon Beach Bill in 1967, which provides public ownership of land along the Oregon Coast from the water up to sixteen vertical feet above the low tide mark. It does not allow for the public to cross private property to access that beach, nor should it. Same with stream rights, if we are below the high water line, we are on public "property", but we do not have the right to cross private property to get to that high-water mark, nor should we. Find a public access point, for the most part there are plenty, then travel on the public property as you will.

The area that I would agree needs some revisit are the public lands surrounded by private property, with no public access and/or the corner issues - perhaps the government should buy or lease easements for access, but then you have that clean-up/maintenance issue as pointed out by @Jake.

Again, private property has been purchased, we pay taxes on it, just like our homes, vehicles, etc. When I was a land owner in Kansas, I planted an apple orchard and vineyard (2500 grape vines), why should it be OK for some uninvited guest to cross through my hard work/investment, perhaps doing damage, littering etc. Who will compensate me? Or what if they trip, break a leg, and I get sued, who protects me?

I think the onus is on those who want greater "freedom to roam" to outline how they will protect landowners from abuses.

Cheers

 

[Emily27]

Think we might be mixing things up here. Oregon beaches do not fall under freedom to roam. The Oregon beaches are publicly owned following passage of the Oregon Beach Bill in 1967, which provides public ownership of land along the Oregon Coast from the water up to sixteen vertical feet above the low tide mark. It does not allow for the public to cross private property to access that beach, nor should it. Same with stream rights, if we are below the high water line, we are on public "property", but we do not have the right to cross private property to get to that high-water mark, nor should we. Find a public access point, for the most part there are plenty, then travel on the public property as you will.

The area that I would agree needs some revisit are the public lands surrounded by private property, with no public access and/or the corner issues - perhaps the government should buy or lease easements for access, but then you have that clean-up/maintenance issue as pointed out by @Jake.

Again, private property has been purchased, we pay taxes on it, just like our homes, vehicles, etc. When I was a land owner in Kansas, I planted an apple orchard and vineyard (2500 grape vines), why should it be OK for some uninvited guest to cross through my hard work/investment, perhaps doing damage, littering etc. Who will compensate me? Or what if they trip, break a leg, and I get sued, who protects me?

I think the onus is on those who want greater "freedom to roam" to outline how they will protect landowners from abuses.

Cheers

From what I've read the beach law is considered an example of freedom to roam, this is what Oregon.gov says about it
"The bills mimicked a Texas law that recognized the public's continued use of private beach land as a permanent right. Commonly known as the Beach Bill, it established a permanent public easement for access and recreation along the ocean shore seaward of the existing line of vegetation, regardless of ownership."
And this from a Wikipedia article on it
"The Beach Bill declares that all "wet sand" within sixteen vertical feet of the low tide line belongs to the state of Oregon.[5] In addition, it recognizes public easements of all beach areas up to the line of vegetation, regardless of underlying property rights. The public has "free and uninterrupted use of the beaches," and property owners are required to seek state permits for building and other uses of the ocean shore.[6] While some parts of the beach remain privately owned, state and federal courts have upheld Oregon’s right to regulate development of those lands and preserve public access."

Is Oregon's legendary 'Beach Bill' out of date? Some think it's time to revisit

The project fueling the fury involves the repair and extension of existing riprap at a property that was developed in 1948.

www.oregonlive.com

"Many people don't realize that in many, many cases, private property lines go down the sand to the high tide line. The beach bill was a way of making sure people had access to the beach and the right to walk on that dry sand without having to own it," he said. "The reality is the law didn't take the beach and make the state the owner. It said let's find a way to compromise between property rights and the public desire and right to be on the beach. ."
it also was not a small proportion "According to the Oregon Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, 112 of the 262 miles of beach property were privately owned."

I think that since there are areas that are technically private property where public access is still mandated I would consider it an example of freedom to roam

For your vineyard example, I'm pretty sure the majority of freedom to roam laws are applicable only to undeveloped/uncultivated land or contain some other restriction on how close people can be to residences/developed land, would you be comfortable with a law with those stipends?

 

[Scottybs]

DNR easements and high water mark laws are the most ideal.

 

[Tom Butler]

Are you sure about this?? If you go by a strict originalist interpretation of US law (often asked/promoted by Supreme Court candidates), trespassing is a quite modern invention (I forget the details, but I don't think trespassing laws existed until after the Civil War) and thus unlawful with respect to original intent. Most all early court decisions and precedents long established that nothing was "taken" by people passing over the land, therefore nothing was owed to any private parties and no rights of exclusion by property owners existed.

My family owns a decent piece of land in NH that has long remained unposted and traversed by others, hunted on, etc. When I see how trespass laws have been strengthened and abused to exclude people from land, rivers, etc in so many places, I still wish early U.S. law had better codified common law practices of the time when the concept of trespassing was basically unthinkable. We may have even developed better cultures of care and respect and use around roaming wild lands without the fences and signs..

No, not sure. Certainly enough of an argument both ways it would ultimately be contested in court.

Much better, in my mind, is for a person to individually approach the landowner on a case-by-case basis.

I do a lot of this.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

For your vineyard example, I'm pretty sure the majority of freedom to roam laws are applicable only to undeveloped/uncultivated land or contain some other restriction on how close people can be to residences/developed land, would you be comfortable with a law with those stipends?

Who decides what constitutes "undeveloped". We have a member here who has some land with a wonderful collection of rhododendrons, which from the photos posted appear to be on otherwise "undeveloped land". Where would the protection be from "roamers" who perhaps unwittingly trample some rare Rhoda while trying to access some public land? What about private property that has native features the owner is trying to conserve. Does rangeland constitute undeveloped? What if my bull charges and injures some roamer?

Again, it's just not that easy. The landowner needs to be protected and potentially compensated.

cheers