Hacker News Reader

Comment by balderdash | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a situation of nice in theory harder in practice. Take a look at national and state parks in the US, for the most part people are pretty good, but then again they have police forces /rangers, and there is a reason.

On my family’s farm, the whole place was posted: “no trespassing/no hunting” yet we’d have people out in a pasture trying to pet farm animals or horses or find deer stands and trash (mostly beer cans in the woods), or people who would help themselves to our raspberries/apples etc., not to mention the amount of trash we’d find and clean up along our road frontage. I can’t believe how much worse it would be if people felt entitled to be there.

I’m generally aligned with principle of right to roam, but I think it’d be a nightmare in practice. + I can’t even think about the associated liability when some person gets kicked by horse or gets shocked by an electrical fence etc.

View on HN

People do not want to trespass on private land here - they are upset that they have to trespass private land, to reach the land where they have the right to roam. But they are usually surrounded by fences of private land.

"In 2000 the Countryside and Rights of Way Act gave people a right to roam over certain landscape types, such as mountains, moorland, heathland, downland and commons.

However, the campaign group Right to Roam argues that this landscape – known as “access land” and covering about 8% of England – is often surrounded by farmed fields and other privately owned landscapes, creating inaccessible “islands” of free-to-roam land."

My point is not about trespassing but rather “responsible access” - people still feel ok not acting responsibly (while trespassing) if you increase the number of people accessing land you are by definition going to increase the number of people acting “irresponsibly” (there is a zero percent chance that 100% of people act responsibly)

I feel the same way about money.

If you have a direct way through the private land, maybe even fenced to both sides if you feel threatened - then this would not be a issue here.

But irresponsible people are a general problem. Often it is just mere ignorance, though. Many people simply do not know for example how to .. go to the toilet in a forest. Even when you do not have a shovel with you, with a wooden stick or stone, one can make a hole deep enough to cover all of your buisness. And suddenly all the trees next to the major walking paths would not be covered in shit and toilet paper anymore. And that you do not drop your garbage wherever you stand, is a deep rooted sociological problem. One for me starting with the stupid smoking ad campaigns, where the cool cowboy flicks away his cigarette. And where it lands, the plastic will remain.

Yes. Here in the western U.S., some public lands near populated areas close during the summer, because of extreme fire danger. Having larger crowds camping in the woods raises the danger for everyone, even with the supervision of the forest service. It'd be insanity to ignore trespassers on private lands in summer.

This discussion reminds me of the "green corridors" specifically created over highways and such so that wildlife doesn't get stranded on islands (which is often a last step before extinction).

Sounds like one could... erm, "kill two birds with one stone" here ?

I don’t think the right to roam is necessarily the same thing as you portray as the right to “hang out”. There are many places in the US where property lines make impenetrable barriers to public land. Your farm might have fences that share a side with your neighbors, and then theirs, and so on for miles even if there is a national park behind you. Americans have such a preoccupation with “muh property” that this is seen as totally normal and acceptable but it really shouldn’t be.

I’m pretty sure it’s exactly that - Scotland’s right to roam includes limited commercial activities (bike tours/hiking tours) as well as camping. It’s not just cutting across someone’s field to access a park

[1]https://www.skyhookadventure.com/blog/scotland-right-to-roam...

[2] https://www.morton-fraser.com/insights/right-roam-scotland

Copied verbatim from your link:

“Camping is not permitted on enclosed farmland, cultivated fields, or land around houses.”

Nobody is trying to steal anyone’s land or gun collection here.

lol - why are you talking about guns (I think your bias is showing) - moving the goal posts is not exactly sound rhetoric so people can “hang out” (e.g. camp) just not everywhere

Tragedy of the commons for right to roam versus the need for georgist taxation when its missing. Very interesting comment -- appreciate your input!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com