Freedom to Roam

The beach is more like state land/parks/blm. Do they not have that in Europe?
 
Realistically we don't even have a right to roam free on some public land without a permit. , and we have to put passes in our window to park (the yellow one from wdfw or the discover pass).
I'm grateful for what we have, state ocean beaches being highways, Puget sound access if the land wasn't deeded prior to statehood, and access to a navigable river to the OHW line is pretty cool.
 
Last edited:
Maybe instead of freedom to roam broadly across private land (I'm against that), freedom to access public lands would be an appropriate discussion. Either by corner crossing or very small easements along property lines (or where agreeable by Owner) so that no public land is completely surrounded by private land (and as a result inaccessible).

Fully aware this is much easier said than done. But it really chaps my ass that there's public land out there that is essentially privately owned because the public can't access it.
 
And there you have it… everyone wants to be like Europe now… but they either are unaware or knowingly leaving a few crucial details out.
I also should have added American Landowners would make it difficult. It's not just American "Roamers" that would keep this from working. American views on land ownership, property rights, and individualism would keep this from working here.
 
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..
Are you sure about this ;) ? Trespass was well established in English common law before the revolution. American common law is derived from English common law.

As to "most all early court decisions and precedents long established that nothing was 'taken' by people passing over the land," please meet William Blackstone: Trespass, according to William Blackstone, is “an entry on another man’s ground without lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. …every such entry or breach of a man’s close carries necessarily along with it some damage or other: for, if no other special loss can be assigned, yet still the words of the writ itself specify one general damage, vis. the treading down and bruising his herbage.” 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 209-10.

Blackstone was bummed by bruised herbage.
 
I also should have added American Landowners would make it difficult. It's not just American "Roamers" that would keep this from working. American views on land ownership, property rights, and individualism would keep this from working here.
I agree with the above. European right to roam culture, history and traditions (unwritten rules?) are very different from North American "spread westward, occupy the unused land and put it to productive use" tradition culture and history . These are two traditional mindsets that are mutually exclusive even though they can be appealing.
 
Are you sure about this ;) ? Trespass was well established in English common law before the revolution. American common law is derived from English common law.

As to "most all early court decisions and precedents long established that nothing was 'taken' by people passing over the land," please meet William Blackstone: Trespass, according to William Blackstone, is “an entry on another man’s ground without lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. …every such entry or breach of a man’s close carries necessarily along with it some damage or other: for, if no other special loss can be assigned, yet still the words of the writ itself specify one general damage, vis. the treading down and bruising his herbage.” 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 209-10.

Blackstone was bummed by bruised herbage.
Aren't we all?

cheers
 
I worked a cattle ranch just outside of North Powder, OR.
My partner and I were riding fence when we spotted another cowboy leading a pack horse across our pasture. We are talking about four full sections of land.
We rode over and ask WTF and he said he was riding across the state of OR kinda following the Oregon trail.
We reminded him to use the gates and close them after himself.
The ranch owner would have had the guy and his horses arrested for trespass.
 
Are you sure about this ;) ? Trespass was well established in English common law before the revolution. American common law is derived from English common law.

As to "most all early court decisions and precedents long established that nothing was 'taken' by people passing over the land," please meet William Blackstone: Trespass, according to William Blackstone, is “an entry on another man’s ground without lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. …every such entry or breach of a man’s close carries necessarily along with it some damage or other: for, if no other special loss can be assigned, yet still the words of the writ itself specify one general damage, vis. the treading down and bruising his herbage.” 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 209-10.

Blackstone was bummed by bruised herbage.
I think he might be right actually, I found this article in the Atlantic talking about how trespassing laws only became ubiquitous post civil war
 
Interestingly after doing some further research, in many states Oregon included I'm not sure about Washington going on private property that is not properly marked or fenced is not considered a crime, although its probably not worth pushing ones luck with a landowner who doesn't read legal code for fun :)
 
Trespassing may be been made a crime in the US after the civil war, but it was a common law tort since the founding of the country (and back to England).
Do you know if in a typical tort case a landowner would have to prove damages to successfully sue? The article I was reading made it sound like many activities like hunting and fishing were typically allowed on private land even when the trespassers were taken to court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
Two thoughts come to mind; Europeans and maybe Canadians are nowhere near as litigious as Americans and they seem to be much less prone to littering.
We owned a house in suburbs of London for a few years and had some friends living in it for a couple years so it could be looked after and garden maintained. The day before I arrived with my family for an extended visit the male occupant stepped out to get the newspaper and the door swung shut behind him, locking him out. A second floor window was open and to get there he had to climb onto a lower roof behind the kitchen, which would allow him to access the open window. The low roof was a 6/12 pitch (or better) and slate shingles; he slipped and fell onto the walk which was cobblestones, shattering his pelvis.
After arrival and going to see him in hospital I thought I should call the insurance company to advise them as that is what I’d do if anyone got hurt on my property.
The insurance agent listened to me and asked if the injured party had been forced or coerced into climbing onto the roof from which he fell. It was apparent to me they thought it quite ridiculous that anyone would have a case, or if they did sue, be successful in any kind of lawsuit.
While I felt bad for Paddy, I was comforted by the fact his lengthy hospitalization and rehabilitation was fully covered by the NHS. Also found it interesting that the insurance company was quite amused with my concern that there could be a lawsuit.
 
I’d love to see Puget Sound’s tidelands made free to roam. Sure, jackasses would occasionally make a mess, but the nice thing about tide fluctuation is that it’ll quickly wash away any attempted squatters!

I would like this to. The state's decision to sell the tidelands was a terrible one. There are a lot of good beaches that aren't accessible.
That said, I also understand people pay property taxes on those owned tideland parcels and have the right to not allow access to their lands.
Having your "chat up the property owners" game at a high level can help gain access.

There will also always be those property owners that try and limit access to tidelands they don't actually own.
SF
 
In Vermont, as long as you are within
Do you know if in a typical tort case a landowner would have to prove damages to successfully sue? The article I was reading made it sound like many activities like hunting and fishing were typically allowed on private land even when the trespassers were taken to court.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, “[o]ne is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.”

There is a "law of the chase" defense to trespass where you shoot a deer (or whatever), the wounded deer goes onto private property, and you chase it to recover the deer.
 
Back
Top