Freedom to Roam

[TicTokCroc]

Leases of federal land/state land - grazing rights, timber companies, railroad, etc. Tax breaks only if public is allowed to recreate on land, or cross safely(railroad). Also all liability of the leasee is eliminated.

Navigatable waterways- average high watermark, access from any public easement. Any waterway that has flows year round.

Public land islands cut off by private- must provide access at corners or some other form of easement.

 

[Scottybs]

Leases of federal land/state land - grazing rights, timber companies, railroad, etc. Tax breaks only if public is allowed to recreate on land, or cross safely(railroad). Also all liability of the leasee is eliminated.

Navigatable waterways- average high watermark, access from any public easement. Any waterway that has flows year round.

Public land islands cut off by private- must provide access at corners or some other form of easement.

This guy gets it… on a lighter less annoyed note… I fish a ranch in a western state that is still a working cattle ranch, anyways some of the big money fly fishing companies have tried to purchase it and the owners have told them no numerous times. Amazing place, they only charge $10/day to fish/camp on THEIR land, really cool that places like this still exist.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

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.

So millions of acres of state and Federal lands are not enough for you, you want free and unfettered access to my land that I paid for/am paying for with my hard earned dollar, and for which I pay annual property taxes because "it would be cool"? You're correct, it does sound "incredibly immature".

Have you been on many public lands lately? Have you seen the trash? So called "pristine" places are littered; the Upper Deshutes, the Metollius, even relatively hard to access places such as the upper north fork of the Crooked River, I would come out with other folks beer cans, yards of tippet and mono, jumbo paper cups and plastic bottles. You want on my land, you ask!! Show some respect for me, my hard work, and my property and you likely get access.

cheers

 

[Emily27]

You still keep stumbling on the NIMBY part.

Yeah, I think that's a good point, I'm trying to disentangle why it feels different but I'm not sure if I can adequately.

I think one differentiation from being totally NIMBY in my mind is that it doesn't feel like I am advocating for a different policy prescription to different people, like I'm not just saying oh people in rural land should be okay with someone camping next to their garage but they shouldn't be allowed to camp next to mine, but I understand that from the perspective of the functional effect on different groups, it would, conveniently, not have anyone on my property but would have people on others so maybe I'm just trying to rationalize out that cognitive dissonance idk.

I do feel like it makes sense for land use type/zoning to have an effect on when trespass is allowed or not though, I think it's why having someone be allowed on the beach, or in a river feels different than having someone be in an extended woodsy backyard, maybe a law sorted by forest type/some metric of wildness would make sense. idk.

 

[Scottybs]

Yeah, I think that's a good point, I'm trying to disentangle why it feels different but I'm not sure if I can adequately.

I think one differentiation from being totally NIMBY in my mind is that it doesn't feel like I am advocating for a different policy prescription to different people, like I'm not just saying oh people in rural land should be okay with someone camping next to their garage but they shouldn't be allowed to camp next to mine, but I understand that from the perspective of the functional effect on different groups, it would, conveniently, not have anyone on my property but would have people on others so maybe I'm just trying to rationalize out that cognitive dissonance idk.

I do feel like it makes sense for land use type/zoning to have an effect on when trespass is allowed or not though, I think it's why having someone be allowed on the beach, or in a river feels different than having someone be in an extended woodsy backyard, maybe a law sorted by forest type/some metric of wildness would make sense. idk.

i really struggle with the Colorado approach to river access, it sucks. Idaho on the contrary has easements next to very wealthy places to access some rivers. How it needs to be done, a couple people have brought up how public land is islanded by private land. That is something that could use examination and compensation. Public lands that are leased to companies are OWNED by tax payers…. Maybe we should have a little say. But the premise of saying mine is yours for land is a very dangerous position, most definitely will result in violence. I’m fortunate one day, a guy chewed my ass for walking on a power line easement into a stream. He was the rightful owner of the land and the legal easement was for a power line, not Scottybs. I apologized and stated my lack of awareness on the rules of easements. He then invited me to park in his driveway to access he stream when he realized I wasn’t some self absorbed asshole. Humbleness and asking for permission from the old guard can go a long ways.

 

[Emily27]

So millions of acres of state and Federal lands are not enough for you, you want free and unfettered access to my land that I paid for/am paying for with my hard earned dollar, and for which I pay annual property taxes because "it would be cool"? You're correct, it does sound "incredibly immature".

Have you been on many public lands lately? Have you seen the trash? So called "pristine" places are littered; the Upper Deshutes, the Metollius, even relatively hard to access places such as the upper north fork of the Crooked River, I would come out with other folks beer cans, yards of tippet and mono, jumbo paper cups and plastic bottles. You want on my land, you ask!! Show some respect for me, my hard work, and my property and you likely get access.

cheers

Yeah for sure. If I were a politician I would definitely present it differently like think about our impoverished communities and the nature that's restricted from them and whatever else, just being perfectly transparent I am not the most virtuous in my interest, but I think there are a lot of good policies that I think about more from the lense of myself than the public good. My gut approval for road safety laws for instance comes more from how they keep me and my friends and family safe rather than society's safety as a whole even though I recognize and appreciate the broader benefits.

That's definitely a good criticism, I feel like a supports access to nature in spite of the problems of pollution and disrespect for nature though. I think it's another net benefit thing, I feel like the cumulative good of access is more valuable than the harm that comes from it, and when that harm outweighs the benefit of access then it makes sense to close access. there are lots of examples of natural areas being closed because of the risk the public poses to them when the things within them are considered too sensitive or important for it to be worth, I'm just not sure if the average everyday harm that would come from public access is above that threshold.

 

[TicTokCroc]

i really struggle with the Colorado approach to river access, it sucks. Idaho on the contrary has easements next to very wealthy places to access some rivers. How it needs to be done, a couple people have brought up how public land is islanded by private land. That is something that could use examination and compensation. Public lands that are leased to companies are OWNED by tax payers…. Maybe we should have a little say. But the premise of saying mine is yours for land is a very dangerous position, most definitely will result in violence. I’m fortunate one day, a guy in WI when I lived in MN chewed my ass for walking on a power line easement into a stream. He was the rightful owner of the land and the legal easement was for a power line, not Scottybs. I apologized and stated my lack of awareness on the rules of easements. He then invited me to park in his driveway to access he stream when he realized I wasn’t some self absorbed asshole. Humbleness and asking for permission from the old guard can go a long ways.

What really pisses me off is all the private timberland that is gated and locked up. Back in high school I could go several miles down the road to thousands of acres of hunting and fishing. Now you need to buy an expensive limited numbers permit that sells out in 30 seconds. I get that there is trash and fire danger and maintaining the roads but what deal is the public getting out of those concessions anymore?

 

[Emily27]

i really struggle with the Colorado approach to river access, it sucks. Idaho on the contrary has easements next to very wealthy places to access some rivers. How it needs to be done, a couple people have brought up how public land is islanded by private land. That is something that could use examination and compensation. Public lands that are leased to companies are OWNED by tax payers…. Maybe we should have a little say. But the premise of saying mine is yours for land is a very dangerous position, most definitely will result in violence. I’m fortunate one day, a guy chewed my ass for walking on a power line easement into a stream. He was the rightful owner of the land and the legal easement was for a power line, not Scottybs. I apologized and stated my lack of awareness on the rules of easements. He then invited me to park in his driveway to access he stream when he realized I wasn’t some self absorbed asshole. Humbleness and asking for permission from the old guard can go a long ways.

Yeah, it's definitely not an easy issue to solve, I think that any changes that are to be made in the future will likely be piecemeal like allowing corner hopping, and increasing stream and beach access would all probably happen separately, probably better to let people work out the kinks one step at a time too. The idea of changing the rights of private property owners is an exciting/interesting one, I think it would be nice if people were more publically aware that they are not necessarily unchangeable. One cool thing I have read about is that in addition to the rights of the landowner, there are also responsibilities, although less often thought about, and future environmental advocacy could advocate to change property rights and responsibilities to include requiring stuff like environmental restoration/mitigation if you own riverside property or other stuff along that vein, although that is a wholly different proposal with its own problems.

 

[John Svahn]

I work for a Land Trust in CA. A large part of our mission is to acquire access easements or land in fee to access adjacent recreation lands. I don't want to jinx us but so far we have been fortunate that the trashing of our trust's lands has been manageable. We were really put to the test these past few years, when outdoor sports became really cool during covid and when remote work/van life really took off. It seems like every wide spot on our roads had someone camping in them, even though we are day-use-only (outside of our Webber Lake campground.) My completely unsubstantiated theory is that since we have broad support from our local community as well as 'down the hill', people were pretty good about self-regulating because so many have skin in the game.

Off-topic sorta, but when I was about 14 I lived in the mid-Atlantic. We trespassed onto a property to fish a pond. The farmer pumped a shotgun behind us and gave us what-for. He then marched us to his house, called the sheriff, and made us spread pea gravel on his driveway on a hot July day until the sheriff got there. We were then let-go. I learned a lot that day!

 

[Emily27]

What really pisses me off is all the private timberland that is gated and locked up. Back in high school I could go several miles down the road to thousands of acres of hunting and fishing. Now you need to buy an expensive limited numbers permit that sells out in 30 seconds. I get that there is trash and fire danger and maintaining the roads but what deal is the public getting out of those concessions anymore?

The point that public access/ownership has gotten to in the US and the world today and the direction of the trend is pretty disappointing, I wish there was at least some amount of popular pull to put stuff back into the people as a whole's hands but it seems like either I'm not looking hard enough or it does not really exist.

I checked out this book from the library in my town this morning "This Land is Our Land, How we Lost the Right to Roam and How to Take it Back" by Ken Ilgunas so maybe I'll have an answer to fix our every access woe by the time I read it, seems like a longshot though.

 

[SurfnFish]

Have seen both sides of it.
Being friendly to a rancher in Montana resulted in my wife and I being given access to his expansive lands and a private lake absolutely holding the goods.
Conversely, have been confronted while wading an OR coastal steelhead stream by an asshole with a shotgun for having crossed from the road to stream via a corner of an unfenced dormant pasture, as I had done dozens of times before without incident.
We spent some time in the Methow Valley. Primo pads on riverfront, built by Microsoft employees who didn't understand what a bitch it is to get there from Seattle half the year. Vacant houses, with fading stains and peeling decks with sweet runs calling right in front. Trespassing or reasonable use of a neglected property?

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

Trespassing or reasonable use of a neglected property?

It's still trespassing though, even if it's reasonable, even if it's justified.
Having also been on the shit stained underwear end of a shotgun, I'm not doing it (trespassing). Not worth it.
I'd rather try and get in touch with them (owner) and see if they'll allow it. Which is what I'd want others to do if it were my land - even if I was neglecting it.

 

[wanderingrichard]

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?

That actually happened in Oregon not to long ago... dam removed, lake drained, property values..?????

 

[wanderingrichard]

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"

I think, in the case you are desperately trying to make, the answer could range from" The State" to no one...most likely it varies state to state, location to location.

 

[wanderingrichard]

The point that public access/ownership has gotten to in the US and the world today and the direction of the trend is pretty disappointing, I wish there was at least some amount of popular pull to put stuff back into the people as a whole's hands but it seems like either I'm not looking hard enough or it does not really exist.

I checked out this book from the library in my town this morning "This Land is Our Land, How we Lost the Right to Roam and How to Take it Back" by Ken Ilgunas so maybe I'll have an answer to fix our every access woe by the time I read it, seems like a longshot though.

Emily, please be careful. After reading through all of this , it appears you've created a self sustaining circular arguement for yourself.

As others have said, this is a complex problem with social ramifications. There are too many circumstances in play, but Americans being Americans, when we should be reasoning our way though things, we often can't get past our generational social engineering , or we childishly throw a fit, take our toys and go home to sulk .

In reality, we have to strike a balance between those paradigms and the anarchy of uncaringly just traipsing through others property. In short, if you want access, ask. At worst you get told No. But you could be surpised with a "Yes,but" ....

I haven't yet had a gun pointed at me, though there's always a first time, BUT I did have a legal run in with a landowner who decided that the publicly navigable waters running beside his pasture were his exclusively, and strung an electrically charged (cattle fence power) bare wire across the creek at chest high to someone in a small boat or canoe as a way of keeping people away from his cows. Neither myself or my boat mate saw the thing until it hit her in the chest and shocked her, in the process passing the current to me through the boat. Soon as we self rescued and were able to recover everything, we got to the nearest phone and called the sherrif and the state police. That resulted in about a years worth of ugly legal wrangling that left everyone involved pissed at each other but the wire came down.