Hacker News Reader

Comment by vesinisa | Hacker News Reader

The article seems to suggest Right to Roam was only introduced in 2004 in Scotland. Is this really so?

In Scandinavia Right to Roam (alle-mans-rätt / All Men's Right) predates even the earliest modern laws, so is generally not even codified but based on an immemorial legal tradition.

View on HN

It was codified in 2003[0] but dates back centuries. Here's the wikipedia entry for the code that governs access.[1] The tl;dr is "you can go where you want, just be responsible" - don't camp in somebody's garden, don't annoy the sheep, don't interrupt the hunts/stalking, and leave no trace.

It really is a fantastic tradition. As a Scottish expat, but frequent visitor, it's nice to be able to hike, bike, canoe, and camp pretty much anywhere. Trying to do the same in much of the US is likely to result in being chased off with a gun.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Outdoor_Access_Code

"Trying to do the same in much of the US is likely to result in being chased off with a gun."

this is a real problem in the West of the US. There is so much land fenced in that it's really difficult to do cross country hiking. When I visited Scotland it was a breath of fresh air to see how easy it is to get around there.

Running into barbed wire at neck level, in a canoe or kayak, is no fun either. Some of us carried wire cutters.

There are pretty huge swaths of public lands in America that are easy to look up on a computer. Texas is one if the few states that's deficient in them, by comparison. As unpopular as this statement may be, it really does behoove you to look up where you're going before you start just cutting down fences. But I never bought into that whole anarchy argument, as it quickly devolves into might makes right, by default.

This was pre-Internet.

Also, these are typically situations where someone owns land on both sides of a river, and illegally strings wire across the river. Ignoring the fact that the river is a public waterway. Even though their land is posted against trespassing.

Wait, what? I live in Colorado, and a third of the state is public land. There's two long distance trails (The CT and the CDT) that go over much of the state, or completely through. I've lived for months on a bike, and never camped in the same spot twice - and never once had to pay for it.

I think there's more public lands in the county I live in currently (Boulder, CO) than there is in all of the State I grew up in (CT). I know many places in this state that I could walk 100 miles through, without hitting a paved road. I live 30 miles from a National Park, and 18 miles from the nearest Wilderness Area.

A, "right to roam" law would certainly be nice to have, but we're not being suffocated by private land ownership. Things are just different here, than in Scotland. Less people per area of land.

In CA when you go out to the desert areas you often hit fenced in areas you can't/shouldn't cross. This makes it very difficult to approach interesting areas. Sure there plenty of trails but I only realized how confined you are in CA when I got to Scotland where it's so much easier to roam around.

I've stood on mountaintops in California where I couldn't see the end of the National Park I was in, past the horizon. Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP itself is half the size of Scotland.

California has 199,490 km2 of protected public lands, more area than 2.5 Scotlands.

Yes, there are national parks but if you are not close to one you are out of luck. Go out to the Mojave for example. There are huge areas that are fenced off.

unfortunately there are still many "land locked" public lands among those protected lands in california: public lands which are encircled by private lands, with no easement. in the sierra the access situation is generally very good, however there are definitely examples elsewhere which beg the question of what it means to be "public" when it can't be accessed.

for example, although the summit of berryessa peak is on BLM land, the only access is through private land. fortunately one land owner was convinced to allow an easement on a short section of trail to allow the opening of the berryessa peak trail, and access to this peak, but for years it was public and yet off-limits.[1]

on the west side of lake berryessa, cedar roughs wilderness, currently has no access. there are old roads/trails in there which are accessible from private land, but no public easement.

there was an article posted here last year about similar issues surrounding the crazy mountains in montana[2].

[1] https://www.summitpost.org/berryessa-peak/766290 [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-25/this-land...

A lot of desert ecosystems are incredibly fragile, and if just one asshole with an offroad vehicle starts doing donuts for fun on the weekend will get damaged in ways that can take decades to recover.

There are plenty of public lands in CA where you can walk around off trail.

Right to roam laws clearly don’t include the right to do damage by driving an offroad vehicle anywhere you like.

Yes, but the existence of jerks with offroad vehicles explains some of the fences.

There are plenty of places where just having visitors regularly hike across the ground off-trail does significant damage to the ecosystem, which is why fragile or popular parks restrict public access to marked trails and designated campsites.

>https://www.nps.gov/articles/seug-soil-crust.htm

Living soil which can be destroyed by footsteps. Cyanobacteria and lichens and algae. One of the oldest organisms on Earth.

Not the case here in Texas. Nearly everything is private land, roaming around here is a sure way to get shot at.

Texas gives the message of, "stay out". I say, "OK: No problem".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com