I dont really get how people were able to just walk into military bases. Shouldn't they have fences? And if there's no fence, isn't it just public land that it's OK to walk on?
In the western US, you will find several remote military bases that include ground and air live-fire ranges that are un-fenced. There are usually signs though. (Some) military bases are very large, making it impractical to maintain complete fencing around them.
>And if there's no fence, isn't it just public land that it's OK to walk on?
Why would it be?
> Why would it be?
This isn't the culture in the US, but in some parts of the world, the default assumption is that land is accessible unless it's fenced or otherwise marked. There are some politeness norms like not walking right up to someone's house in the woods, but generally in i.e. Norway, if it's outside, you're probably allowed to be there.
The culture in the US seems to come from capitalism being such a part of our culture. Every resource, including land, is viewed as a commodity. Even many of our publicly-owned land which is ostensibly intended for public use, such as state and national parks, has entry fees.
It costs money to maintain public lands like national parks. The neanderthals who don't understand Leave No Trace principles cause massive amounts of damage that needs to be prevented, policed, and repaired. Chores like trail maintenance, habitat restoration, wildlife studies, trash removal, toilet upkeep, etc. etc, all need to be done to keep the parks as close as possible to wild, so that the next generation can enjoy it. Entry fees fund the conservation of these public lands.
It costs money to maintain public land, but that's not any less true in the other countries I'm talking about. The difference is that that cost is more likely to come from national budgets, rather than from fees, which is better in a lot of ways: it's more transparent, and is a progressive rather than regressive tax, is better for tourism, etc.
Also note that a lot of the non-fenced land in i.e. Norway isn't public land, it's private land, and it's still accessible to the public due to cultural norms. This may seem weird that there's a social expectation that people will open their private property to public use, but the flip side is that there's little cultural opposition to government helping maintain property. Many hiking shelters, for example, are on private property, but built and maintained by the government.
I don't think there is any doubt that these military bases were marked.
> > And if there's no fence, isn't it just public land that it's OK to walk on?
> Why would it be?
Although land does need to be marked with "No Trespassing" signs in order to gain certain rights under the law.
In the USA, no - it's owned by the federal government and has criminal trespass laws surrounding it just like any other owned property ("land parcel"). https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1634-pro...
Criminal trespass does not generally require a fence or sign in most US states (they say you have greater legal protection if you do post a sign or make a fence, but it's not required - IANAL, I just read the internet :)). https://www.bestofsigns.com/blog/no-trespassing-signs-laws-w...
...and some states such as my own do not embrace the concept of BLM managing public land the way California does as a unique state; in some states most land is generally considered private and legally owned by (someone or something). https://www.wideopenspaces.com/public-land-texas-brief-histo... and has corresponding state-specific criminal trespass laws. Pulling from another comment comparing Norway culture, roughly 2.5x(?) Norways can fit inside Texas.
(edit1: fixed HN markup emphasis)
E.g. Fort Fontenac, one of the bases named, is the site of a historic battle and so has cultural interest open to the public. But it also has official Canadian Forces business conducted on site. Similarly some of the CFBs have museums etc and are generally open to the public.
It’s possible people might wander (especially on Army posts) onto ranges out in the sticks, but the actual garrison area will be off limits to the public (esp in the Navy and Air Force). A quick glance at Google Maps for some Canadian military installations shows them without gate guards and open to the public.
I don't know the answer to your question, but my instincts pose it in the negative sense: Why would there be a right to be on the Queen's land without permission?