Hacker News Reader

Comment by cel1ne | Hacker News Reader

Since we're talking about how awesome Norway is, this [0] should be mentioned.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Norway

Scotland also has similar "right to roam" legislation (as listed on that page you linked to) - which given the ways that large landowners often acquired land here seems rather just to me.

It's an awesome right.

As a Finn I always find it really weird when visiting places outside Nordic Countries that for them most of the country is unaccessible.

In Germany we don't got this right, but seldom I have been prohibited from "roaming" the landside. But we aren't allowed to put a tent anywhere and sleep in it, which is rather sad.

A friend of mine went on a hiking holiday in Scotland and he told me, he just walked till he was tired, put his tent up on the next green spot and slept there.

As an aside, here in Scotland you quite often don't even need to put up a tent - there are houses/huts in a lot of wild locations, known as bothies, that are completely free to use:

http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/

we aren't allowed to put a tent anywhere and sleep in it, which is rather sad

Probably connected to the risk that squatter's rights poses to the land owner... not that pitching a tent for a night is a serious risk, but squatter's rights really encourages that kind of culture.

Yes, owning land is a big problem in all countries.

Not knowing anything about squatter's rights (or law in general), shouldn't it be possible to just create a law putting whatever limits we want on camping WITHOUT the need for it to be completely forbidden?

I am just now in a place where free camping is not allowed, but the local authorities interpret the law as: "no tents between dawn and dusk". I wish that was put into a written law.

The key item of squatter's rights is that if a squatter occupies land with the land-owner's knowledge for a number of years, the land now legally belongs to the squatter.

One night of camping is not years, but squatter's rights certainly encourages land-owners to be ever-strict about visitors to their land.

Only 7% of the land in Finland and Sweden is Agricultural land, compared to 70% in the UK, so it's no wonder that the countryside is much more inaccessible.

That being said, there's a lot more that could be done, such as allowing kayaks into rivers and lakes without so many unreasonable limitations and/or paperwork.

Driving across the US west, you can’t help but notice how every bit of land is cordoned off with barbed wire or fences. Doesn’t matter if it’s in the middle of emply plains or uninhabited mountains. "Private property" and "no trespassing" signs abound.

You do have to ask permission of the landowner to hike/camp on their property. But with the size of some of the cattle on the land (I'm thinking of Texas Longhorns) and the presence of common predators/pests like feral hogs and coyotes, it's not always safe to just wander around.

There's also the water issue. If you run out of water in the west while on your hike/tramp, you're in life-threatening trouble. And there's often no cellular service.

Hardly "every bit". The federal government owns more than half of the land west of the Rockies [0], and most of that (e.g. US Forest Service and BLM land) is free to roam over. Much of it you can camp anywhere you want, too.

[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/al...

Yeah, so awesome. 729 whales so far, tell me again how awesome they are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-kills-...

That's just sensationalist clickbait. The whale species hunted are not endangered and there is no ban on hunting these whales. There are many species of creatures which actually are and which you should spend more time caring about though. These whales are not among them.

So Norway isn't violating a whaling ban?

Yes. They are. However, the IWC resolution to ban whaling is not binding. It's advisory and in my opinion not based on facts but feelings.

There is no law which bans it. Just an agreement among several countries which Norway isn't a part of as far as I know.

Fair enough. Although I personally would prefer it if whales were left alone.

why? they aren't endangered, people like to eat them. why is a whale different from say a deer?

Yep, just like the Kyoto Protocol. (no sarcasm, just pointing out that he's right, and that most people also think every nation is bound by the Kyoto Protocol)

What is the problem? These whales are not near extinction like some whales outside Japan. The allowed quota for whales each year is strictly regulated by Norway which is one of the most environmental states in the world (yes we have lots of oil feel free to point out the double standard there). The killing itself is in most cases instant. If you care about how animals are treated you should be much more disgusted at how chicken are raised and their living conditions. The whale lives a happy life until it is killed.

Oh and whale meat is delicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com