Would a federal freedom to roam law work in USA?

[Oslohiker]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?

[Malto]

I can't imagine someone setting up a tent in Bill Gate's backyard for three nights. Exchange Bill Gates with any other "elite" and this is why it is unlikely to happen. Private property rights have a long history in the US for right or wrong.

[Oslohiker]

I can't imagine someone setting up a tent in Bill Gate's backyard for three nights. Exchange Bill Gates with any other "elite" and this is why it is unlikely to happen. Private property rights have a long history in the US for right or wrong.

You got a good point here. The law does not just cover wilderness. Just a long it is at least 150 meters away from a house, you can use it. "Bill gates backyard" would work just fine in Norway. There has been some legal disputes regarding putting up illegal fences in order to deny people access. (It reminds me of the disputes around beach access in Malibu). You can even freely use privately owned piers or wharfs.

[Uriah]

Here in the US we seem to value property more than human life. Private property basically means NO TRESPASSING! It's one of the reasons The Monkey Wrench Gang hasn't been made into a movie, because a film showing the wanton destruction of p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y sends the wrong message, while human-on-human violence is absolutely okay (and a big seller at the box office).

[DavidNH]

Oslo hiker.. setting up your tent on private land, without the landowner's knowledge andwithout any standing agreement will only lead to trouble. Big trouble.

[Oslohiker]

Oslo hiker.. setting up your tent on private land, without the landowner's knowledge andwithout any standing agreement will only lead to trouble. Big trouble.

Not if there is a law that says you can?

[Feral Bill]

All else aside, our system of government leaves such things to the states. The federal government has no authority in this area.

[MuddyWaters]

Do you know why europeans come HERE to hike?

because its much less restricted than in europe.

Heres the problem in a nutshell. Too little land there, too many people.

Were working on the same problem.

[Oslohiker]

Do you know why europeans come HERE to hike?

because its much less restricted than in europe.

Heres the problem in a nutshell. Too little land there, too many people.

Were working on the same problem.

I highly doubt that many Europeans come to hike in the US. Do you have any numbers?

In Norway half the population hike one or more times every year. How many Norwegians have thru-hiked the Appalachian trail?
(My motivation would be for the love of USA and the American culture).

What is more restricted in Europe? Please explain.

[Nodust]

I have enough problems with people on my land illegally. Hunting, fishing, whatever. They cut fences letting cows out, damage gates, destroy hay bales for winter feed. Why would land I worked hard to pay for just be available to anyone?

I love to hike, camp , and roam, but there is more than enough public land to do that.

Permits aren't that tough to get when you need them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MuddyWaters]

I highly doubt that many Europeans come to hike in the US. Do you have any numbers?

In Norway half the population hike one or more times every year. How many Norwegians have thru-hiked the Appalachian trail?
(My motivation would be for the love of USA and the American culture).

What is more restricted in Europe? Please explain.

Plenty of germans hike the AT each year
For instance, from what I know of, its almost impossible to legally camp anywhere in germany except a commercial campground designed for car camping. Every forest in the country has a forestmeister that tickets people for illegal camping. To take a simple trip is supposed to be a huge hassle.

Its not just for hiking, but there tends to be many europeans , especially germans, in Yosemite national park.

[OkeefenokeeJoe]

Oslohiker, you certainly have a warped sense of "freedom." What you are describing is not freedom at all. It is the big hand of government suppressing the rights of property owners.

I own a farm out near the edge of the swamp. If I catch ANYONE on my property without permission a .12 gauge shotgun will be staring them in the face, along with 5 guard dogs.

About 5 years ago, just after midnight on Christmas Eve, I held two millennial punk trespassers face down in the dirt at gunpoint for two hours until the Game and Fish wardens arrived. They were happy as hell when they saw the blue lights of the game wardens in the distance. After they were cuffed and taken into custody, we found a young doe they had shot. Bastards. Never saw those maggots, though. Oh yeah, the State sent me a check for $100 for capturing those two night-hunters. SWEET!

It's like this, Oslohiker, you can keep your uber-taxed Norwegian socialist, big-government-owns-everything, form of government. I much prefer private property ownership and the rights and freedoms contained therein.

Nevertheless, you are always welcome to the USA where freedom still means something.

OkeeefenokeeJoe

[Sarcasm the elf]

I wish we could have right to roam laws, but I don't think they would have much of a chance passing in the US, our culture is based to heavily on private property rights.

A more immediate problem and one that needs to be resolved is that under the laws of most States in the US a property owner can be sued and held financially liable if a person gets hurt on their property. Many of the no trespassing signs that I see in my area are posted primarily because the landowner is fearful of a lawsuit. If landowners wer e able to allow people on their land without fear of being sued then there would be a lot more properties that would be accessible to the public.

[Oslohiker]

Plenty of germans hike the AT each year
For instance, from what I know of, its almost impossible to legally camp anywhere in germany except a commercial campground designed for car camping. Every forest in the country has a forestmeister that tickets people for illegal camping. To take a simple trip is supposed to be a huge hassle.

Its not just for hiking, but there tends to be many europeans , especially germans, in Yosemite national park.

There is a documentary about Appalachian trail that has run in Germany like forever. That has inspired a lot of Germans to thru-hike the Appalachian trails. But I promise you that there are several times more Germans in Norway during the summer time enjoying the freedom to roam.

You are right in that many Europeans visit National Parks in the US. They have a love for American culture, and visit everything they have heard of "over there". The big cities and the most known national parks. And they eat hamburgers and drink Budweiser, and feel real American. But it is nothing wrong with that. But go to some of the less known and you will hardly find any.

[Malto]

Oslohiker, you certainly have a warped sense of "freedom." What you are describing is not freedom at all. It is the big hand of government suppressing the rights of property owners.

I own a farm out near the edge of the swamp. If I catch ANYONE on my property without permission a .12 gauge shotgun will be staring them in the face, along with 5 guard dogs.

About 5 years ago, just after midnight on Christmas Eve, I held two millennial punk trespassers face down in the dirt at gunpoint for two hours until the Game and Fish wardens arrived. They were happy as hell when they saw the blue lights of the game wardens in the distance. After they were cuffed and taken into custody, we found a young doe they had shot. Bastards. Never saw those maggots, though. Oh yeah, the State sent me a check for $100 for capturing those two night-hunters. SWEET!

It's like this, Oslohiker, you can keep your uber-taxed Norwegian socialist, big-government-owns-everything, form of government. I much prefer private property ownership and the rights and freedoms contained therein.

Nevertheless, you are always welcome to the USA where freedom still means something.

OkeeefenokeeJoe

BE nice, it is a legitimate question. There is something to be said for freedom to roam, as there also is for property rights.

[Lone Wolf]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?

hell no. next!

[Connie]

I have an onX Hunt app, not because I hunt.

I have it because it works with a GPS and has property boundaries and ownership.

It has a 1-year subscription for each state.

I think it is worth it, because I like to know where it is okay to hike and camp, and find out what rules apply.

I have heard England has a "walker" law, that allows walking on private property.

There are rules that apply. Nevertheless, when I was in England I would not do it.

Why? Private property is important here, and ownership of land gives us more standing in the community: it is a fact.

If you are a transient, or, viewed as a transient, is to be avoided. Not by other citizens nearly so much as by the law.

There seems to be practically no protective law for anyone that is thought to be a transient: avoid that perception.

I understand, for example, hostel travel is very acceptable in Europe. Not here.

Look like a tourist, even if you stay at a hostel.

In many places, a backpack is unacceptable. In some places, there is a city ordinance about putting a backpack down on the sidewalk.

Not the AT, however for San Francisco, CA it is a fact.

I like the open land concept in Norway I read about. I would like to cross-country ski in Norway, if only because I see pictures of so much open country (no fences).

Is a backpack acceptable for a traveler or a tourist in the cities, in Norway?

[CoolBobby]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?

This could not work in the USA. I (and my close family members) own nearly a thousand acres of wilderness in Maine. While we allow people access to it, we also require that they ask permission, and have the written permission on them at any point while on our land. Trespassing has lead to jail to for several violators. My family has had some of this land in the family longer than the American flag has had 50 stars, and I have added to it as finances have allowed. My hard work is dedicated for my family of my choosing, not for all of mankind.

At our residence in Florida, we have a 20 acre plot out in the Nature Coast jungle. We routinely find "campers",homeless persons, meth junkies, and trash dumpers. Private Property is exactly that. PRIVATE. The United States is not a socialist country, yet. God forbid....

[iAmKrzys]

Folks, I have heard that someone on Facebook is organizing a really fun tent festival in Oslohiker's backyard. If you decided to attend please remember to follow all the rules - stay at least 150 meters from his house and other buildings, and remember to leave in 3 days. Because of a smallish lot size, the number of tent sites is limited, but supposedly the organizers will be posting the number of open spots twice daily. If asked by anyone, please invoke your freedom to roam right.
Have fun! :banana

[Lone Wolf]

This could not work in the USA. I (and my close family members) own nearly a thousand acres of wilderness in Maine. While we allow people access to it, we also require that they ask permission, and have the written permission on them at any point while on our land. Trespassing has lead to jail to for several violators. My family has had some of this land in the family longer than the American flag has had 50 stars, and I have added to it as finances have allowed. My hard work is dedicated for my family of my choosing, not for all of mankind.

At our residence in Florida, we have a 20 acre plot out in the Nature Coast jungle. We routinely find "campers",homeless persons, meth junkies, and trash dumpers. Private Property is exactly that. PRIVATE. The United States is not a socialist country, yet. God forbid....

:cool:......................................

[rafe]

Do you know why europeans come HERE to hike?

because its much less restricted than in europe.

Heres the problem in a nutshell. Too little land there, too many people.

Were working on the same problem.

Europeans do lots of hiking. They're not as anal about private property as we are in the USA.

[Connie]

I love to hike, camp , and roam, but there is more than enough public land to do that.

Permits aren't that tough to get when you need them.

I wouldn't be surprised if we have more public land designated for recreational use than some entire countries' land mass.


quick Google..
http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

[Nodust]

I wouldn't be surprised if we have more public land designated for recreational use than some entire countries' land mass.

That wouldn't surprise me either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dogwood]

Basically UNLIMITED opportunities to hike, backpack, trek, walk about, roam, etc in the U.S. However, as also in Norway, freedom does not equate with the absence of any rules or regulations.

Enjoy your walks wherever they may be.



I highly doubt that many Europeans come to hike in the US. Do you have any numbers?

In Norway half the population hike one or more times every year. How many Norwegians have thru-hiked the Appalachian trail?…

https://www.nps.gov/tourism/ResearchTrendsandDatainfo/gwustudyofinternationalparksandvisitors.pdf

The NPS is the place to go to find out how many non U.S. citizens visit the U.S. National Parks each year. According to this 1998 report 21% of the nearly 24 million foreign visitors to the U.S. who arrived here by airlines visited the then 50 U.S. National Parks then in existence. These are only the 50 NPs not the several hundred places the NPS oversees. The majority of these foreign visitors are from Europe. If you allow me the latitude to hypothesize those numbers are significantly higher in 2015. These numbers don't include foreigners who visit and hike in U.S. State Parks, Wilderness Areas, National Seashores, National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, land overseen by Bureau of Land Management, National Forests, etc.

Don't assume the Appalachian Trail IS THE PLACE that foreigners, or ALL AMERICANS flock to hike in the U.S. The AT is not the center of the global or U.S. hiking world despite easily coming to this mistaken conclusion because one may only be familiar with forums such as White Blaze where the AT is by far the focus. For reference, as a rather socialite on some LD hikes(at least I was in 2006), on a 2006 AT 4.5 month NOBO Thru-hike I recorded in my trail journal meeting AT hikers from 29 different(non U.S.) countries.

[Connie]

For most people, their "entire world" is a city. This is so not true.

Here is a helpful map:

35004

[SWODaddy]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?

How is depriving someone the use of their land a freedom?

[rocketsocks]

A perfect example of why freedumb is never really free and someone will always have to pay.

[Gnomad]

How does one "own land". If we all got past that...

[rafe]

About 5 years ago, just after midnight on Christmas Eve, I held two millennial punk trespassers face down in the dirt at gunpoint for two hours until the Game and Fish wardens arrived.

I'm sure Jesus would have been proud. :rolleyes:

[MuddyWaters]

How does one "own land". If we all got past that...

Well, we dont actually own land in the US.
We only rent it
If you dont believe it, try not paying your yearly rent to government
They will give it to someone else that will.

[cliffordbarnabus]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?

i cycled around the world for 6 years. and i loved scandinavia. just throw it down wherever. mutual respect.

however, i do remember there being like an $80 entrance fee for the national park at the north cape. i began engaging in a u-turn. then the guy at the booth starts yelling at me, kindly. he says, "bikes are free...that fee is only for cars." sweet.

[CamelMan]

I would love a law like this, Oslohiker, I've heard it's the same in Sweden. I don't believe in private property. It's just a fiction enshrined in law.

[Kaptainkriz]

That and eminent domain. Land was actually taken (forced buyout) from people to establish portions of the AT using eminent domain.

Well, we dont actually own land in the US.
We only rent it
If you dont believe it, try not paying your yearly rent to government
They will give it to someone else that will.

[Connie]

$80 entry to a national park? Not here, so far.

We believe we should keep a rein on government.

We should do more of that!

[Connie]

blah blah

I wrote: a few good laws..

[adamkrz]

Reminds me of the 70's song from the five man electrical band - sign - sign - everywhere a sign do this don't do that can't you read the sign - I'm the holder of a few illegal camping tickets myself.

[rocketsocks]

How does one "own land". If we all got past that...i find the whole concept of owning land a bit of a farce, but the laws of the land hinge on the ideas and mutual understanding of a modern society, and with those we maintain decency and an expectation reed on to do with your land as you see fit. Don't pay your taxes and the land your family has own for 400 years will be sucked up, so freedom ain't really free is it.

[rocketsocks]

Expectation of freedom to do with your land as you see fit.

[rocketsocks]

Reminds me of the 70's song from the five man electrical band - sign - sign - everywhere a sign do this don't do that can't you read the sign - I'm the holder of a few illegal camping tickets myself.me too, they just haven't been handed to me yet.

[35king]

Not sure I'd go as far as allowing free roaming wherever, whenever but I sure would like to see more freedom to disperse camp through out my area (northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin area) I like to hammock camp and if you're with a few friends, you need to find the right spot to hang multiple hammocks. We shouldn't be as confined as we are (in my area) to a few sparce camping locations.

[admirald7s]

But I promise you that there are several times more Germans in Norway during the summer time enjoying the freedom to roam.

As you said in post #9, got any numbers to go with that? If you're saying you need numbers and sources to believe us, it's only fair for you to provide the same before we believe you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lonehiker]

...life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

[Oslohiker]

As you said in post #9, got any numbers to go with that? If you're saying you need numbers and sources to believe us, it's only fair for you to provide the same before we believe you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing in English, but here it says that the Germans spend 930 000 hotel (or tent) nights in Norway, and we are a population of about 5 million:.

http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/PageFiles/3035388/Turistundersøkelsen%20-%202014%20-%20Tyske%20turister%20-%20siste.pdf

[Oslohiker]

Nothing in English, but here it says that the Germans spend 930 000 hotel (or tent) nights in Norway, and we are a population of about 5 million:.

http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/PageFiles/3035388/Turistundersøkelsen%20-%202014%20-%20Tyske%20turister%20-%20siste.pdf

52% of those nights are spent either in tent or a a RV.

[Oslohiker]

52% of those nights are spent either in tent or a a RV.

58% of German turists hike more than 2 hours on their stay.

[Connie]

Not to mention state parks and recreation areas, here are a few examples, to take a hike.

* The National Park Service (NPS) conserves lands and resources on 80 million acres – a Norway-sized area – in order to preserve them for the public. Any harvesting or resource removal is generally prohibited.


* The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 89 million acres – an area slightly bigger than Germany – to conserve and protect animal and plant species.


* The United States Forest Service (USFS), which oversees timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife habitat protection and other sustainable uses on a total of 193 million acres – almost the size of Turkey – mainly designated as National Forests.


* The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), managing 248 million acres [5] – an area the size of Egypt – has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, supporting energy development, recreation, grazing, conservation, and other uses.


reference:
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

These are only four examples: our federal government does this.

[Connie]

This map shows even the east coast, we think of as continuous utban sprawl, has more forests than urban development.

35005

If I were in an east coast state, I would get the oxHunt app map for that state, to find out where I have access.

It is a subscription service, because each map is updated.

I do not hunt. I only want the app, so my iPod Touch GPS will show me I am not trespassing.

The state map I have used, gives me ideas so I find out rules and regulations that may apply.

One example: I went to a national forest office in Arizona. I made certain of the information. I found out I was welcome to "primitive camp" anywhere in huge tracts of land, the ranger pointed out. He also pointed out hot springs and abandoned cabins for public use.

Of course, it was limited stay. Of course, it was pack it in - pack it out. Leave No Trace.

It was important I had a small portable Eco-toilet (boom box, equipped with RV type pump out fittings) I had purchased for my float trips on rivers.

There are different rules for different places: this was "high desert".

This is but one example of my getting out for recreation.

I do bicycling, with so-called "stealth camping" - only it is legal. I do canoeing, kayaking, camping, and hiking.

It is my experience, if you can't find a place to do these things, even fishing, boating, birdwatching.. other recreation, you haven't really looked into it.

I know people that legally motorcycle, dirt bike, ATV, and RV "boondock" legally.

It is limitated-thinking that holds people back from finding out about all there is for hiking in a natural environment.

[rickb]

What an interesting thread! I want to visit Norway now more than ever.

I would note that we have had a similar tradition in Maine for many years, albeit limited to the vast tracts of privately owned forests.

This link provides a good history: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=mpr

The issue has taken on an elevated profile in recent years after very successful self-made business woman purchased some 100,000 acres to be preserved and if approved, made into a National Park. When she had closed off some of her property to the public, she became reviled by many of the locals.

Anyway, it's another way we Americans look at others private property. I appreciate that it's different in Norway.

[Oslohiker]

Oslohiker, you certainly have a warped sense of "freedom." What you are describing is not freedom at all. It is the big hand of government suppressing the rights of property owners.

I own a farm out near the edge of the swamp. If I catch ANYONE on my property without permission a .12 gauge shotgun will be staring them in the face, along with 5 guard dogs.

About 5 years ago, just after midnight on Christmas Eve, I held two millennial punk trespassers face down in the dirt at gunpoint for two hours until the Game and Fish wardens arrived. They were happy as hell when they saw the blue lights of the game wardens in the distance. After they were cuffed and taken into custody, we found a young doe they had shot. Bastards. Never saw those maggots, though. Oh yeah, the State sent me a check for $100 for capturing those two night-hunters. SWEET!

It's like this, Oslohiker, you can keep your uber-taxed Norwegian socialist, big-government-owns-everything, form of government. I much prefer private property ownership and the rights and freedoms contained therein.

Nevertheless, you are always welcome to the USA where freedom still means something.

OkeeefenokeeJoe

I have to emphasise that my question did not have basis in that I would suggest that Norway is a better country in general, or that I want to tell Americans what to do with their country. I just wanted some good answers to the question I put forward, which I have gotten. The lack of freedom do roam annoys me as person, and not Norway as a nation.

What the definition of freedom is has been discussed among philosophers for a very long time. Contributors are among others Steiner, Hegel, James and Schopenhauer. But I understand you have the final conclusion once and for all. For me freedom is first of all an intellectual freedom, but I sure do feel free when I exercise my freedom to roam.

The question is if people anywhere should have an absolute property sovereignty over such big areas, and wilderness in general. You say yes, but think about this. If USA had been even more capitalistic, like objectivistic Ayn Rand style, the rich 1% would not only own 40% over everything, but more than 99%. Would you still feel free? In my country the land owners still make money on hunting and fishing rights, and harvesting the forest. Other people just got the right to roam the land. Not much else. But again, this is how we do it, it does not mean that you have to do it.

Norway do not have a socialist government at the moment. But one thing they will never touch is free universal health care and the freedom to roam. Actually this non-socialistic government is working on expanding the rights of the freedom to roam (they will remove som local rights to deny access). The tax burden is not that high, and we don't have to pay for education or medical care. This is not a pissing contest, but I challenge you to come to Norway and not like our kind of freedom. Many Americans confuse socialism with communism. Remember, socialism did work for Scandinavia.

[Pedaling Fool]

I have to emphasise that my question did not have basis in that I would suggest that Norway is a better country in general, or that I want to tell Americans what to do with their country. I just wanted some good answers to the question I put forward, which I have gotten. The lack of freedom do roam annoys me as person, and not Norway as a nation.

What the definition of freedom is has been discussed among philosophers for a very long time. Contributors are among others Steiner, Hegel, James and Schopenhauer. But I understand you have the final conclusion once and for all. For me freedom is first of all an intellectual freedom, but I sure do feel free when I exercise my freedom to roam.

The question is if people anywhere should have an absolute property sovereignty over such big areas, and wilderness in general. You say yes, but think about this. If USA had been even more capitalistic, like objectivistic Ayn Rand style, the rich 1% would not only own 40% over everything, but more than 99%. Would you still feel free? In my country the land owners still make money on hunting and fishing rights, and harvesting the forest. Other people just got the right to roam the land. Not much else. But again, this is how we do it, it does not mean that you have to do it.

Norway do not have a socialist government at the moment. But one thing they will never touch is free universal health care and the freedom to roam. Actually this non-socialistic government is working on expanding the rights of the freedom to roam (they will remove som local rights to deny access). The tax burden is not that high, and we don't have to pay for education or medical care. This is not a pissing contest, but I challenge you to come to Norway and not like our kind of freedom. Many Americans confuse socialism with communism. Remember, socialism did work for Scandinavia.
Interesting thread Oslohiker.

I definitely agree that Norway is NOT a socialist country, very much a capitalistic, and with an economy based much on oil reserves from the North Sea.

Personally, I'm a believer in property rights, much preferring our current way, but I can see how this Freedom to Roam philosophy would work in places like Norway, but not here. Having said that, I've never felt trapped while out doing hikes or bike tours.

I've been to Norway, but I definitely don't pretend to be an expert on the area, but one thing I noticed from my very limited experience, is that culture in Norway is far different, not nearly as diverse. I think this is primarily because of immigration laws and that Norway's population is a mere 5-million, whereas here we are the third most populous country in the world. I'm probably wrong in this and open to correction, but that's the way I see it now.

BTW, I've never heard of this Freedom to Roam thing, so I'm going to read up on it and will be interested to follow this thread, it's definitely different than the normal threads...

[Don H]

In the US you have the right to roam most of the 30% of the land that the government owns or controls.

As far as camping or "roaming" on my private property, can I charge you a fee?

[Pedaling Fool]

I am a Norwegian, and I spend most of my vacations in the US (about seventeen now). I have also worked there, and been a student there. There are a lot I love about USA, but the lack of freedom to roam has annoyed me quite a lot.

What is freedom to roam, and how does it work?
Well, there are differences between countries, but here is how it works in Norway:
- You can hike in any wilderness areas, who ever owns it (also on private land), and no one can deny you that.
- You can put up a tent, as long as it is at least 150 meters from the nearest building.
- You can stay in the same spot at a maximum three days in a row.
- You can even bike on the trails.

What has annoyed me in the US.
- Most land you can’t hike freely on, because it is private property. And if it is not private, you often have to have a permit. In Norway a permit is unheard of, and we don’t pay anything to enter National parks.
- You have to have knowledge about who owns the wilderness you want to enter. You don’t have to check anything in Norway. If it is wilderness, you can use it.

Could this work in the US? Would anyone here on White blaze want this system?
One thing I forgot to mention is that I totally agree that the permit system and pay systems we have here in the US for parks is something I totally hate and in that area, I would very much like to see us more like Norway.

[rafe]

I've camped and walked in several countries in Europe. Different attitude toward land ownership there. Different outlook about property and government as well.

England must have some sort of law(s) similar in effect to what Oslohiker describes. Which is to say, landowners need to tolerate foot traffic over the margins of their lands.

My wife and I have walked portions of The Coastal Path, a 630 mile path in southern England, along the coast of Cornwall and Devon. It's gorgeous. Anyone can walk it. And they do.

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, for all on here that don't understand the concept of property ownership and want this law here in the U.S., keep in mind this goes way beyond simply walking across a tract of land. It would mean that horses and bikes have a right to the AT.

[Traveler]

BTW, for all on here that don't understand the concept of property ownership and want this law here in the U.S., keep in mind this goes way beyond simply walking across a tract of land. It would mean that horses and bikes have a right to the AT.

How would private property laws affect Congressional designation and protection of the AT as a footpath?

[Pedaling Fool]

How would private property laws affect Congressional designation and protection of the AT as a footpath?
From the little reading I've done already, this law doesn't just apply to private property.

http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/en/Areas-of-activity1/Outdoor-recreation/Right-to-Roam/Cycling/


You can ride your bike wherever there is a right of public access. You may also cycle across fenced land on private roads and established paths leading to open country, although organized groups and commercial users are not allowed to do so. Just be sure that the road, path or terrain you are using is suitable for cycle traffic. Some greenbelt land, recreational areas and nature reserves may have special rules or even a complete ban on cycling. Check whether there are designated cycle routes and a cycling map of the area

That's Freedom to Roam, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean we have to adopt the law verbatim, so are we simply talking about allowing people to walk across private land or Freedom to Roam? I'm talking about the entire law.

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, not all is peachy in Norway with this law, proving once again that it's seldom greener on the other side of the hill. Apparently some tourists taking advantage of the Freedom to Roam law

Interesting reading: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2015/07/28/protests-fly-over-wild-camping/

[35king]

The problem is, people are ********.. We've all encountered them and they don't give a **** about anything or anyone. They're selfish and destroy things for no good reason. This is why we object so imminently against freedom to roam. We bust our chops at jobs we hate to afford the little we have and we wouldn't risk it for the chance that one of these ******** roams into our land and wrecks what we have worked so hard to earn. If everyone had common courtesy and respected each other and their property or nature for that matter, we wouldn't be so worried about freedom to roam.

[Connie]

Wow.

Here, the oxHunt app map for this state shows private property, that allows hunting and fishing.

There is no reasonable place to walk, in town, that isn't concrete or blacktop.

I looked at the map, inquired: now, I walk along the river corridor, and, I have found hikes that go thru private property. I asked, or wrote by using the private property information provided.

I said, I see you allow hunting and fishing. Is it okay to hike thru your property to put together a reasonably long hike. I will close gates.

I put more recreational land for hiking than the entire land area of Norway, Germany, Turkey and Egypt in my post to the thread on this page.

I only took first page results of a Google search.

We need to do more?

I think the people who criticise are not looking into this, at all.

Please stay on the crowded corridors of the AT. There someone else will blaze the trail for you.

My website lists long trails, but don't look. You might like those long trails.

http://www.ultralightbackpackingonline.com/links1.html

[rafe]

I like this verse in the original version of "This Land is Your Land" --

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.

http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm

[Connie]

I should add, I have written: I am a long distance hiker. I need to stay in shape. Is it okay to hike thru your land?

I close gates.

I remember practically no fences on The Rocky Mountain Front. Instead of fences, ranchers had roundups.

I still asked permission.

Even then, people did abuse.

More recently, one young man unloaded clips of ammunition into an elk herd, up on the reservation.

There is abuse.

[Leo L.]

Very interesting thread, this one.
Norway, and the other three Scandinavian countries, are very special in this respect, completely different from the whole rest of Europe.
We (from central Europe) look at Scandinavia, and especial Norway, as a country that does use ist natural resources in the best possible way, without the greed and urge to "take it all immediately" and "make as much money as fast as possible", but take as much as necessary and provide support for the own people as good as possible. Clever politicians with a lot of common sense.

Situation is completely different in Central Europe. Totally overcrowded, every square meter is owned by somebody and everybody is defending his own place with utmost fear of loosing it.
There is no free roaming, no crosscountry hiking, nothing that comes close to somthing like the famous LD trails, and the extensive (mostly free) use of land the US system of NP, National Forest and the like provides.
All we have in Austria is a law that allows everybody to enter any forest (be it private or State Forest) by foot during daylight. No camping, no biking, no horse riding, no fires. Problems arise if you collect more berries or mushrooms than for your immediate private use. And its allowed to enter any area above tree zone (so rock/mountain climbing if free in Austria).
The bigger part of forest in Austria is owned by the state, but is run like a private company in terms of earnings. So, for paying users it is free for whatever they paid for. Pay 20,- and you can drive your dirtbike up a forest road for one day. Pay hundreds, thousands of € and you are free to hunt, use shelters (actually lodges), drive your SUV up there, and kick out every other user that didn't pay.
It comes down to the sad fact that multiday hikes are illegal, not per se, but by the fact that staying overnight in the forest is illegal.
We have alpine huts. They are nice, situated along famous hiking paths, you get drink, food and shelter, and they take money. Terrible lots of money. We could hardly afford taking 2 weeks holyday in those alpine huts, let alone do a 3-months hike through Austria (if it were big enough) based on alpine huts.

So, if we dream of "freedom" by hiking, camping, roaming or whatever you name it, we dream of America/Canada, or Scandinavia.

My personal favorite is the desert in Egypt though. In Egypt everything is forbidden anyway, but law enforcement usually is weak or non existent, and everybody does everything to his own desire.

I think every country has developed ist own delicate set of rules that would not fit to any other country in just the same way.
Considering the number of LD hikers that tackle the PCT every year, a ticket system of some kind makes sense. Considering the sheer amount of tourists trying to hike down Grand Canyon the permit system makes sense.
Knowing the big number of German/French/Italian tourists going to Norway and North Cape (been there, done that) I can well understand that some problem might arise.

[Connie]

I would love to hike or "walk" in Austria, even if it meant no camping.

Is it only out and back?

If supported, or hitchhiking is reasonably safe and acceptable, a traverse along the mountains would acceptable?

Are Switzerland, the French alps or the Italian alps the same: huts only "camping"?

[Dogwood]

I would love a law like this, Oslohiker, I've heard it's the same in Sweden. I don't believe in private property. It's just a fiction enshrined in law.

Statements like this sound groovy and peachy until we all show up at your place and seize your shart, take all your food, remove you from where you sleep, and put you out in the rain. Then, we'll see just how much you believe having this concept of no one should have private property.

[Dogwood]

Europeans do lots of hiking. They're not as anal about private property as we are in the USA.

Really? Apply that across the board to private property remembering private property is defined by much more than land. But for practice go set your tent up in someone's backyard in Berlin, Edinburgh, London, Moscow, Paris, Rome, etc and see how that goes.

[Connie]

Uh huh.

I got started "housesitting" when denizens of the 1960's were breaking into remote cabins (in the mountains, and at the lakes) and camping on land I even got "custodian of the land" designation by a property owner near a protected wilderness area. The Upper Trinity Ranger District Ranger even asked me to sit in a campground to help protect the access road to the wilderness area. The problem was pot and speed, a bad combination. I did that one time, one night only, and reported it.

I continued housesitting, whenever I could, to save on having to pay rent.

I held onto my money, and I purchased a remote 30-acres because I like rural countryside and mountains so much.

I did this, and I have never been rich. I did have a job, at today's wages less than today's minimum wage: I had student employment at college and at university and, for awhile, I was in the U.S. Army.

I was never a rich american.

As a result, I, naturally, think whiners are wastrels (meaning: a wasteful, good-for-nothing person).

[Oslohiker]

Statements like this sound groovy and peachy until we all show up at your place and seize your shart, take all your food, remove you from where you sleep, and put you out in the rain. Then, we'll see just how much you believe having this concept of no one should have private property.

I don't think you understand what the freedom to roam law is. It's about hiking (and som other activities) and tenting without destroying anything.

[Dogwood]

Nothing in English, but here it says that the Germans spend 930 000 hotel (or tent) nights in Norway, and we are a population of about 5 million:.

http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/PageFiles/3035388/Turistundersøkelsen%20-%202014%20-%20Tyske%20turister%20-%20siste.pdf


52% of those nights are spent either in tent or a a RV.


58% of German turists hike more than 2 hours on their stay.


In personal traveling experiences meeting others from foreign lands and also as a person of German nationality himself it's my assertion Germans will basically travel anywhere almost under any conditions. It helps that the German economy is flourishing basically being the national economy that's holding together the European Union with France's economy. The French also travel extensively. It sure helps to make travel available when it's citizens have the inclination and funds to do so.

[Leo L.]

I would love to hike or "walk" in Austria, even if it meant no camping.

Is it only out and back?

If supported, or hitchhiking is reasonably safe and acceptable, a traverse along the mountains would acceptable?

Are Switzerland, the French alps or the Italian alps the same: huts only "camping"?

In all Alpine countries, the mountains are free. In Swizerland, you are highly suggested to use the bathroom in the alpine hut, even if you are tenting outside. French and Italian hosts would care less, I think.

For Austria, I'm in the process of planning a 20-days hike cleverleave-shape through the mountains around my hometown. Most of it is below tree line, so I'm planning on stealth camping.
From the physical and geological reality hiking in Austria should be perfect. Lots of pure water, no life-threatening animal, nice (if narrow and steep) trails. But most of the time you are close at somebodies backyard.

The biggest danger stems from hunters running havoc. Had a case here recently, when a (illegal) biker ran into a group of drunken hunters. Biker ended up in hospital to get his somewhat big mouth stitched together.

I will give report here afterwards, how my hike worked out.

[Connie]

Oslohiker,

I don't think you understand.. we have all that land, a so much more for hiking and completely legal "Leave No Trace" camping.

We also have horseback riding, horsepacking, bicycle camping, and off-road single-track for dirt bikes, etc. etc. for up to thousands of miles.

It is the littering, damage, and cattle "worrying" or sheep "worrying" by causing them to run, as well as too close approach to protected wildlife that will get you trouble here, including fines and jailed.

Dogs are shot for cattle "worrying" or sheep "worrying" or too close approach to protected wildlife.

I taught my dog hand signals, because shouting or using noise to have the dog obey, interfers with protected wildlife.

[Dogwood]

I don't think you understand what the freedom to roam law is. It's about hiking (and som other activities) and tenting without destroying anything.

What I do understand is that even under your 'freedom to roam' law it is conditional. One can't just do what they want. There is NO unbridled outdoor behavior accepted either in Norway or the U.S.

SO, perhaps the conditions of a similar 'freedom to roam' principle are different in practice in the U.S. still in both countries we have this ability to generally roam.

[Connie]

Leo L.

Then, could I camp outside a hut, without a fee, use the bathroom and, maybe, only purchase a coffee or a meal?

I feel safer, if I carry shelter.

[JohnHuth]

It's about hiking (and som other activities) and tenting without destroying anything.

Yup - and I do know of plenty of places where landowners do allow this. One example is the Maine Island Trail. The organization has secured rights from landowners on islands up and down the coast, where boaters (sea kayakers, sailors) can pull up and camp. MITA, the organization that runs this has a very strong leave no trace ethic. It seems to work well.

I don't know if it would work nationally, but I could imagine local areas where organizations could pool resources to convince landowners to give it a try, but it would be more of a private endeavor, like MITA.

Personally, I've hiked in parts of Europe where there are these permissions - e.g. crossing cow pastures and private land. Although there were no signs, I took it be some responsibility on the part of the hiker to do no damage and respect the property.

[rafe]

Really? Apply that across the board to private property remembering private property is defined by much more than land. But for practice go set your tent up in someone's backyard in Berlin, Edinburgh, London, Moscow, Paris, Rome, etc and see how that goes.

I've camped along edges of fields and meadows, along beaches, hilltops in Switzerland, dunes in Israel. Camped at the summit of Vesuvius, and for weeks along a beach in Morocco. Never harassed by private citizens. (Though that beach in Morocco was where my pack was stolen out of our car one night.)

Camping in Spain along beaches, we were occasionally woken by armed officers who, once assured we were not smugglers, and were moving on shortly, went on their way and left us alone.

On a hilltop in Gibraltar we awoke one morning to see military exercises going on just a few hundred feet away. No guns were involved, however, and the soldiers appeared to be unaware of us. It was surreal.

[Don H]

Wonder who pays when some uninvited "Roamer" gets hurt on someone else property?

[Oslohiker]

BTW, not all is peachy in Norway with this law, proving once again that it's seldom greener on the other side of the hill. Apparently some tourists taking advantage of the Freedom to Roam law

Interesting reading: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2015/07/28/protests-fly-over-wild-camping/

This is not a real problem. It's not the law that's the problem. It is that some very few people are breaking the law. They stay closer than the 150 meters and stay more than three days on the same spot. Are you amazed that people from other countries come to one the richest countries in the world and try to exploit it. We handle it manly by dialog and information.

The really is that you almost never see any problems. If you find anything that don't belong on the trail chances are that it has fell of someones pack. People behave and it is a part of our culture. This also goes for the wilderness that's close to the big cities. People hike or bike there after work, and some tent in the weekends. Some complain about bikes who bikes to fast, but that's about it. No littering, and no problems. In the woods immediately north of Oslo (Nordmarka), half of it is owned by the city and half of it is private property. It does not make any difference for me, and I am not ever going to look up what is what. You can go everywhere you want, there are no littering, and everybody behave. Pure pleasure. This is where I will go on Wednesday. I have a day of work, it will be sunny and 80 F. This is life for me.

Norway is expensive and especially the Germans are known to be cheap. They fill up their RVs with food and fuel from home, trying to avoid buing anything in Norway. It's partly a myth. They leave enough money behind, so it is really not a problem. They behave much better now than they did in the 40s anyway, lol.

[Sarcasm the elf]

They behave much better now than they did in the 40s anyway, lol.

I enjoyed that, thank you for the laugh!

[Oslohiker]

Wonder who pays when some uninvited "Roamer" gets hurt on someone else property?

Goes well together with free universal health care.

[southernfire97]

I will say this. I don't want anyone, no matter how well intentioned, on my property. I work too hard to keep it up, only to have whoever wants to camp on it and possibly trash it up, to be allowed to. Being able to control who has access to your property is one of the great things about the USA.

[Bronk]

I'm surprised to see that nobody had mentioned the state of New Hampshire. I have my information second hand so please correct me if I'm wrong.

About 10 years ago I bought a few acres of woods that used to be a 400 acre tract. A developer subdivided it into lots of between 5 and 10 acres. Out of a few dozen lots only about 5 or 6 of those lots are occupied. The vast majority of them are people's pipe dreams that they will probably never get around to building on. Anyway, one of my neighbors moved here from New Hampshire. For the first couple of years he was here he thought it was OK to hunt and drive his ATV anywhere he wanted on the whole 400 acres. He did this until he had a few run ins with property owners. When I discussed it with him he seemed genuinely surprised that people were so protective of their property. He told me that where he came from in New Hampshire, if you didn't see a no trespassing sign then that property was fair game...you could hunt, fish, camp or do whatever on there. He said that New Hampshire has what is called the Land Use law, which basically says you can either pay a minimal property tax and pretty much allow anyone to use your property OR you can put up no trespassing signs and your property taxes go through the roof...like 10 times what you'd otherwise pay. Now that this guy has been around awhile he understands that it doesn't work that way around here, but it took him a few years to figure it out.

Can anyone from New Hampshire shed any light on this? Is this really the way it works up there or is this guy pulling my leg?

[Kaptainkriz]

http://nhqha.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PostedLandCurrentUse.pdf


I'm surprised to see that nobody had mentioned the state of New Hampshire. I have my information second hand so please correct me if I'm wrong.

About 10 years ago I bought a few acres of woods that used to be a 400 acre tract. A developer subdivided it into lots of between 5 and 10 acres. Out of a few dozen lots only about 5 or 6 of those lots are occupied. The vast majority of them are people's pipe dreams that they will probably never get around to building on. Anyway, one of my neighbors moved here from New Hampshire. For the first couple of years he was here he thought it was OK to hunt and drive his ATV anywhere he wanted on the whole 400 acres. He did this until he had a few run ins with property owners. When I discussed it with him he seemed genuinely surprised that people were so protective of their property. He told me that where he came from in New Hampshire, if you didn't see a no trespassing sign then that property was fair game...you could hunt, fish, camp or do whatever on there. He said that New Hampshire has what is called the Land Use law, which basically says you can either pay a minimal property tax and pretty much allow anyone to use your property OR you can put up no trespassing signs and your property taxes go through the roof...like 10 times what you'd otherwise pay. Now that this guy has been around awhile he understands that it doesn't work that way around here, but it took him a few years to figure it out.

Can anyone from New Hampshire shed any light on this? Is this really the way it works up there or is this guy pulling my leg?

[Leo L.]

Maybe there is a natural limit to outdoor activities in Norway that stops all the nuisances we see when too many people go outdoors?
Had been up there some time ago, and it was raining all time (except when it was sleeting, in higher elevations).
Rarely ever saw so much country with so few people.

@Connie:
Might work - somehow. Depends on the host running the hut. Some might shy you away in order that you don't provide a bad example for him earning no money from you. (the host has to pay huge rent for running the hut and is fighting hard to mak a full-year living out of 2-3 months tourist business)

Right after the opening of Eastern Germany (the Fall of The Wall) and subsequent events, a flood of Czech people swept into our mountains. Basically nice people, but they had no money, absolutely zero. They camped along the roads, covering every suitable spot.
Our Police didn't kick them out, they were far too many anyway, many locals had pity with them and some provided camping in the backyard even.
The flood ceased after 1-2years finally, community workers cleaned out the rubbish and now its business as usual again. That means, everybody is hellish jealous of his property.

[Dogwood]

….The lack of freedom do roam annoys me as person, and not Norway as a nation.

For me freedom is first of all an intellectual freedom, but I sure do feel free when I exercise my freedom to roam.

The question is if people anywhere should have an absolute property sovereignty over such big areas, and wilderness in general. You say yes, but think about this. If USA had been even more capitalistic, like objectivistic Ayn Rand style, the rich 1% would not only own 40% over everything, but more than 99%. Would you still feel free? In my country the land owners still make money on hunting and fishing rights, and harvesting the forest. Other people just got the right to roam the land. Not much else. But again, this is how we do it, it does not mean that you have to do it.


Indeed this is not a pissing contest! :) I may not have direct experience with Norway's "freedom to roam" law in application but I also find your annoyed perceptions of the ability to freely roam in the U.S. is somewhat incorrect. I live a very nomadic freely roaming U.S. lifestyle both through my career and outdoor adventure. If I felt hindered to freely roam in the U.S. I'd absolutely say it. In practice I can always find 100's if not 1000's of contiguous miles to roam freely in the U.S. And, I'm definitely not a fully indoctrinated do as I'm always told never questioning or disagreeing narrow minded U.S. citizen who has never left the U.S. or more regional U.S. area.



I don't think you understand what the freedom to roam law is. It's about hiking (and som other activities) and tenting without destroying anything.


Similar situations are infinitely experienced here in the U.S. IF you seek them. Private land owners, major corporations, gov't entities, etc allow the CONSCIENTIOUS CONDITIONAL USE of their land/resources having camping, trail routing, access to amenities like shelter, water, etc. here in the U.S. too. Is this practiced universally…NO?

And, let's be intellectually honest - free is rarely as free as many make it seem. Trails, YES even in Europe, exist and are maintained through allocation of resources that come from somewhere. And, again, FREE is not the absence of conditions.


This is not a real problem. It's not the law that's the problem. It is that some very few people are breaking the law. They stay closer than the 150 meters and stay more than three days on the same spot. Are you amazed that people from other countries come to one the richest countries in the world and try to exploit it. We handle it manly by dialog and information.

The really is that you almost never see any problems. If you find anything that don't belong on the trail chances are that it has fell of someones pack. People behave and it is a part of our culture. This also goes for the wilderness that's close to the big cities. People hike or bike there after work, and some tent in the weekends. Some complain about bikes who bikes to fast, but that's about it. No littering, and no problems. In the woods immediately north of Oslo (Nordmarka), half of it is owned by the city and half of it is private property. It does not make any difference for me, and I am not ever going to look up what is what. You can go everywhere you want, there are no littering, and everybody behave. Pure pleasure. This is where I will go on Wednesday. I have a day of work, it will be sunny and 80 F. This is life for me…


Could it not be a problem because the vast majority utilizing your 'freedom to roam' law are native Norwegians and it stems from conscientious behavioral Norwegian culture? What might happen if it was a majority of foreigners who perhaps weren't as conscientious started utilizing the 'freedom to roam' law?

[Connie]

If you are looking for another long trail, here are a few.

https://www.nps.gov/nts/maps/National%20Trails%20map.pdf

Find out if you like it: hiking and camping, without a "nanny state".


Oslohiker,

Try to exploit it? We have nothing but "outsider" exploitation, many of our ancestors fled from Europe to escape, now disguised as corporations, but are multinational consortiums.

We need tougher laws about that. We also need to remove private citizen "privacy laws" from public corporations, that were written about the time of WWII.

For a fact, our freedom does not include taking liberties. In fact, every libery bell made cracked!

My family never sold our land, owned before statehood.

By law, that state has nothing to say about it. I would manage our natural resources, only for our needs.

The oil interests on that land are stealing everything as fast as they can.

[nsherry61]

I have enough problems with people on my land illegally. Hunting, fishing, whatever. They cut fences letting cows out, damage gates, destroy hay bales for winter feed. Why would land I worked hard to pay for just be available to anyone?
I think you hit on a significant cultural issue, one that I have fought extensively with my own family over because, I grew up in a family with significant land holdings.

In the US we treat our private land like other private property as if it is ours with the right to do with it as we please. I call B*** S***. In reality, we are but temporary stewards of our privately held lands. "Our" land was (in most cases) there, lived on and managed by others for millennia before we were born and will be there, lived on, and manged by still more others for millennia after we are gone.

So, how much private prerogative do we or should we really have as temporary stewards over our private lands? What amount of private control provides for the best community, society, and long-term family well being? As an owner, we certainly should have rights to protect and exploit our investment within reason. But, what level of protection and exploitation is appropriate for private land owners?

Treating private lands like we do our homes, where an uninvited visitor is, by default, criminal trespassing, is very sad to the 90% of us that would love to roam free and treat the land around us and its owners (and their privacy) with due respect. However, this issue is far more complex and subtle than will ever be straightened out on an internet forum.

In the end, I think that focusing on indictment of criminal abuse of land is more socially responsible than criminalizing respectful trespassing. I would like to live in a world where we, as private land owners, are held to responsible management practices that allow us to personally benefit from the lands resources without the right to unduly damage it or necessarily limit its responsible use by others.

[rafe]

Try to exploit it? We have nothing but "outsider" exploitation, many of our ancestors fled from Europe to escape, now disguised as corporations, but are multinational consortiums.

What were they escaping? I have my own ideas about that, just wondering about yours... I'm trying to understand what you've written. Not sure what you're getting at.

And what did they do when they got here? Oh, but that's another story.

[Lone Wolf]

Goes well together with free universal health care.

free huh? where does the $$ come from to pay?

[Connie]

Principally my identification ethnically is "Old Caledonian" First People. The Celts are Germanic river people. The Irish are immigrants. Next, there are the usurpers, including direct ancestors that are "royalty".

We fled "royalty" and usurpers. The Clearances we experienced in Scotland were never as complete as the clearances of The West, then called The West, actually, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and parts of Michigan.. and certainly not that of Eire (Ireland) by Norwegian slaughter, and slavers.

My ancestors include a famous Norseman of the Orkney Islands, according to ancestry.com so I don't need to hear I am a racist, about Norway.

Ancestry.com reports my family in Virginia had slaves. Our family did not have slaves. In Intellectual History of the United States, a first town meeting near present-day Charleston, South Carolina my family is named. The meeting was about slaves brought by the Portuguese. We knew about emigres paying passage to north america for a 1-2 year as indentured servants. My family said, it is time to make a coin (employees). Instead, we became, at the time, pushed out and referred to as "backcountry scotsmen".

We lived peacefully with our neighbors, native americans or no matter where from. We did no killings or murders. We experienced no killings or murders.

Our orchards, farming practices including weirs and dams, and road building brought prosperity to all.

We did not "export" crops or people.

We are more typical of americans, than cheap "dime novels" pulp fiction.

We lied to soldiers to protect indians, in Montana and from the Oregon Exclusion Act, in Oregon.

Purchased land was on land only hunted, not lived on, purchased during the Louisana Purchase. It was natural, for us, not to restrict hunting. We had lived where hunting was restricted.

In Montana, my direct ancestors brought cattle and horses to Montana (Missouri Territory) because everything that could be food had been slaughtered, not only buffalo, by foreign outsiders we ran off, because we are also royalty so no claim could be made by "royalty" brought in, by their relations and hirelings in federal government.

When the railroad came in, some of my family we thought to be murdered by the railroad men so there would be no problem about right-of-way, and then, we were rumored to be indians.

Ancestry.com reported my DNA is 100% white.

An Irishman said he was our family, the Carters, making himself an early Representative of Montana statehood. My (maternal) Carter family are not Irish, arriving in England before 1145 from France.

If Carter land and natural resources before statehood, here, and in Canada since the arbitrary international border across private property, were restored, we are stewards of the land.

[Oslohiker]

I think you hit on a significant cultural issue, one that I have fought extensively with my own family over because, I grew up in a family with significant land holdings.

In the US we treat our private land like other private property as if it is ours with the right to do with it as we please. I call B*** S***. In reality, we are but temporary stewards of our privately held lands. "Our" land was (in most cases) there, lived on and managed by others for millennia before we were born and will be there, lived on, and manged by still more others for millennia after we are gone.

So, how much private prerogative do we or should we really have as temporary stewards over our private lands? What amount of private control provides for the best community, society, and long-term family well being? As an owner, we certainly should have rights to protect and exploit our investment within reason. But, what level of protection and exploitation is appropriate for private land owners?

Treating private lands like we do our homes, where an uninvited visitor is, by default, criminal trespassing, is very sad to the 90% of us that would love to roam free and treat the land around us and its owners (and their privacy) with due respect. However, this issue is far more complex and subtle than will ever be straightened out on an internet forum.

In the end, I think that focusing on indictment of criminal abuse of land is more socially responsible than criminalizing respectful trespassing. I would like to live in a world where we, as private land owners, are held to responsible management practices that allow us to personally benefit from the lands resources without the right to unduly damage it or necessarily limit its responsible use by others.

Thank you for expressing exactly my thoughts.

[Oslohiker]

Maybe there is a natural limit to outdoor activities in Norway that stops all the nuisances we see when too many people go outdoors?
Had been up there some time ago, and it was raining all time (except when it was sleeting, in higher elevations).
Rarely ever saw so much country with so few people.

@Connie:
Might work - somehow. Depends on the host running the hut. Some might shy you away in order that you don't provide a bad example for him earning no money from you. (the host has to pay huge rent for running the hut and is fighting hard to mak a full-year living out of 2-3 months tourist business)

Right after the opening of Eastern Germany (the Fall of The Wall) and subsequent events, a flood of Czech people swept into our mountains. Basically nice people, but they had no money, absolutely zero. They camped along the roads, covering every suitable spot.
Our Police didn't kick them out, they were far too many anyway, many locals had pity with them and some provided camping in the backyard even.
The flood ceased after 1-2years finally, community workers cleaned out the rubbish and now its business as usual again. That means, everybody is hellish jealous of his property.

Yes, it rains a lot here. That may also be a foundation for the freedom to roam. It's hard to plan ahead, and you should go where ever it's good weather.

[rocketsocks]

BTW, not all is peachy in Norway with this law, proving once again that it's seldom greener on the other side of the hill. Apparently some tourists taking advantage of the Freedom to Roam law

Interesting reading: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2015/07/28/protests-fly-over-wild-camping/...and in other news. If your gonna take part in "roaming free" in Norway, beware the killer heifers. :rolleyes: Darwin Award

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/23/cows-deadly-attack-troubles-rancher/

[Connie]

Leo L.

I would be reluctant to hike and camp, in Austria, as you say, even as a citizen, if people are "hellish jealous" about their property.

I have that oxHunt app to help, here.

Let us know how your hike goes, there, in Austria.

[Connie]

I know exactly one private citizen, who exploits and damages their private property held land.

I know of only one other private citizen, who damages his private property held land.

I think you are confusing agribusiness, and corporate interests, with private citizens.

I do mot know one agribusiness, or corporate interest, that is not multinational.

[rafe]

...and in other news. If your gonna take part in "roaming free" in Norway, beware the killer heifers. :rolleyes: Darwin Award

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/23/cows-deadly-attack-troubles-rancher/

Bill Bryson talks about killer cows in his latest travelogue, about walking in England.

[tdoczi]

I highly doubt that many Europeans come to hike in the US.

seldom does one read such a drastically ill informed statement.

[TexasBob]

...and in other news. If your gonna take part in "roaming free" in Norway, beware the killer heifers. :rolleyes: Darwin Award

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/23/cows-deadly-attack-troubles-rancher/

Quote from caption in the article "It was a cow like this one, from the Norsk rodtfe race, that attacked an elderly couple while giving birth."


Elderly couple giving birth? News in English needs a better editor.

[Oslohiker]

seldom does one read such a drastically ill informed statement.

Since you claim I am ill informed, that indirectly means that you are informed. Please inform me with your information.

[Datto]

I held two millennial punk trespassers face down in the dirt at gunpoint for two hours until the Game and Fish wardens arrived.

Who let the Millennials out? Woof.

Millennials have been some of my best hires. Easily understood, thinking is much like my own. Made it easy for me.


Datto

[Nodust]

In the US we treat our private land like other private property as if it is ours with the right to do with it as we please. I call B*** S***. In reality, we are but temporary stewards of our privately held lands. "Our" land was (in most cases) there, lived on and managed by others for millennia before we were born and will be there, lived on, and manged by still more others for millennia after we are gone.

Treating private lands like we do our homes, where an uninvited visitor is, by default, criminal trespassing, is very sad to the 90% of us that would love to roam free and treat the land around us and its owners (and their privacy) with due respect. However, this issue is far more complex and subtle than will ever be straightened out on an internet forum.
.
Where your house is was wild land once, for some reason people forget that. What makes you so much more important than me in that I have to let people invade my property where I make a living to feed my family and live but your home and yard are off limits.

If you want more wild land bulldoze down the suburbs and force every one to live where ever they can in the city. Turn the subdivisions back into wild land.

I allow many people to use my property to hunt, fish, camp when they ask. The ones that don't respect it can't come back. Some use it illegally and I've had tens of thousands dollars worth of livestock feed, fencing and equiipment destroyed. Now everyone can come who will help police it for me? Who will pay for the extra patrols? I'm sure it would come from my property taxes.

[Leo L.]

Bill Bryson talks about killer cows in his latest travelogue, about walking in England.

Ah yes, we have some bad accidents with cows attacking tourists. Even a casualty sometimes.
Almost every time a dog is involved, along with wrong behavior by the tourist.

[Oslohiker]

I've had tens of thousands dollars worth of livestock feed, fencing and equiipment destroyed.

Why would they do something like that? What's in it for them? I understand that this is not tolerable.

Other than that it makes a difference if the property is big or small. In Norway you can tent 150 meters away from any building. Most property are smaller than that. You can of course disagree with this, but it works perfect over here. We have extremely few cases of people destroying property.

[Nodust]

Why would they do something like that? What's in it for them? I understand that this is not tolerable.

.

I don't know why. People are disgusting sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Connie]

The article describing camping next to a church, in the church graveyard, may be customary elsewhere.

I have seen many bicyclists who think it is right to camp next to a church.

Rather than recruit "guards" to guide them, maybe a sign with a symbol for camping with the acceptable camping rules, or, a pamphlet would help, placed where travelers and tourists enter Norway or look for brochures.

[Pedaling Fool]

This is not a real problem. It's not the law that's the problem. It is that some very few people are breaking the law. They stay closer than the 150 meters and stay more than three days on the same spot. Are you amazed that people from other countries come to one the richest countries in the world and try to exploit it. We handle it manly by dialog and information.

The really is that you almost never see any problems. If you find anything that don't belong on the trail chances are that it has fell of someones pack. People behave and it is a part of our culture. This also goes for the wilderness that's close to the big cities. People hike or bike there after work, and some tent in the weekends. Some complain about bikes who bikes to fast, but that's about it. No littering, and no problems. In the woods immediately north of Oslo (Nordmarka), half of it is owned by the city and half of it is private property. It does not make any difference for me, and I am not ever going to look up what is what. You can go everywhere you want, there are no littering, and everybody behave. Pure pleasure. This is where I will go on Wednesday. I have a day of work, it will be sunny and 80 F. This is life for me.

Norway is expensive and especially the Germans are known to be cheap. They fill up their RVs with food and fuel from home, trying to avoid buing anything in Norway. It's partly a myth. They leave enough money behind, so it is really not a problem. They behave much better now than they did in the 40s anyway, lol.
I was NOT blaming the law, I agree that it's the people that break the law which are at fault. The problem is that when your population increases, the amount of law breakers increase and that will become more and more of a problem in the future. However, from what I've read, you guys in Scandinavia are somewhat unique in your approach to this issue, even compared to many parts of Europe, as Leo L. has illustrated and from things I've read. Apparently, this is something to goes back a very long time and is embedded deep in your culture, I keep seeing the word to describe this as: Allemansratten. And this concept seems to go back to ancient times.


BTW, from all I've read, you can NOT camp for three nights. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/outdoor-recreation-act/id172932/


§ 9. (Picnicking and camping)

It is not permitted to use sites on cultivated land for picnicking, sunbathing, staying overnight or the like without the permission of the owner or user.

In uncultivated areas, it is not permitted to use sites for purposes such as mentioned in the preceding paragraph if this unduly hinders or inconveniences others. Picnicking and camping must not take place if this may cause significant damage to young forest or to regenerating forest. A tent must not be pitched so close to an inhabited house (cabin) that it disturbs the occupants, and in any case no closer than 150 metres. However, the rules on the distance from habitation do not apply in an area that has been specifically designated for camping.

Camping or another form of stay is not permitted for more than two days at a time without the permission of the owner or user. Permission for a longer stay is nevertheless not required in mountain areas or in areas distant from habitation, unless it must be expected that the stay may cause significant damage or inconvenience.

Immediately before and during the hunting season for wild reindeer, the Ministry may prohibit or regulate camping that may cause inconvenience for such hunting.
Camping and other forms of access must take place at the person's own risk as regards damage that animals may cause to persons, tents or other property.

[Nodust]

So what's different than here in the US?


It is not permitted to use sites on cultivated land for picnicking, sunbathing, staying overnight or the like without the permission of the owner or user.

If people ask me I'll normally say yes. Unless they have not respected my property before.

[Bati]

Oslohiker left off one other important part of the law- you cannot camp in areas that are fenced in. When I was in Norway, I saw several fences that were simply a piece of string on a small stakes about a foot off the ground.
The message was clear, the message was honored, and the cost to the landowner was minimal.

One of the keys to making this work is to ensure that such cheap and simple "keep out" messages are heard, and violators get caught.

Over here we use keep out signs and silver blazes in a similar way. It's just harder because when you're hiking you have to keep checking for public land for camping areas (on lesser-used trails) when an act like this would do wonders in certain states.

It would work much better at a state level; there's no need for it in some areas.

[Oslohiker]

So what's different than here in the US?


If people ask me I'll normally say yes. Unless they have not respected my property before.

Cultivated means croplands. Everything else is free to roam.

And yes, I do agree it is two days, not three. It does not matter for me because I stay maximum only one night at one place anyway.

[Pedaling Fool]

Cultivated means croplands. Everything else is free to roam.

And yes, I do agree it is two days, not three. It does not matter for me because I stay maximum only one night at one place anyway.
I really do like the idea of not needing permits or paying to visit parks; I do wish we had that here in the U.S. but it seems like, at least what you hear on this site, that many people love the permit/pay system. Crazy :D

[Nodust]

I'm glad you posted that link Pedaling Fool. The more I read the more I see permission is needed from landowner most of the time.

Kind of a useless law really. Most of it states need permission. Just keeps people from being charged if caught trespassing.

[Oslohiker]

Kind of a useless law really. Most of it states need permission.

Then you have misunderstood. You can roam around freely on uncultivated ground. That is significant difference from total sovereignty for a land owner. I have never asked a land owner for their permission, because have always stayed within the limit of the law. It is extremely rare that anyone take contact with a landowner for permissions, because it is not needed in the normal case.

[Nodust]

Then you have misunderstood. You can roam around freely on uncultivated ground. That is significant difference from total sovereignty for a land owner. I have never asked a land owner for their permission, because have always stayed within the limit of the law. It is extremely rare that anyone take contact with a landowner for permissions, because it is not needed in the normal case.

Then the law just isn't being enforced as written.


Any person is entitled to access to and passage through uncultivated land at all times of year, provided that consideration and due care is shown.

Yes, but


provided that the municipality, with the consent of the owner or user, has not prohibited such passage along specified routes.


If a property is particularly heavily used by the public, the municipality may with the consent of the owner or user determine that all or part of the property shall be closed to the public if public access causes significant damage to the property or is a serious obstacle to the use the owner or user makes or wishes to make of the property.

You are allowed to roam where they let you. Just so happens they let you roam most places. A country full of courteous respectful people that can happen. Here the owner would get sued because someone did something dumb and got hurt.

It won't work and won't happen here. We have plenty public spaces.

[rocketsocks]

Here in the states you are free to roam from Walmart to Walmart and car camp...what a country!:D

[rocketsocks]

Quote from caption in the article "It was a cow like this one, from the Norsk rodtfe race, that attacked an elderly couple while giving birth."


Elderly couple giving birth? News in English needs a better editor.yup, 80 years old.

[Uriah]

Here in the states you are free to roam from Walmart to Walmart and car camp...what a country!:D

And even then more and more Wal-Marts are changing their tune on the overnight parking!

[One Half]

I would love a law like this, Oslohiker, I've heard it's the same in Sweden. I don't believe in private property. It's just a fiction enshrined in law.


Cool. Then you would not mind random strangers crashing at your place for 3 day stints, right? Hey, that cool new laptop or iPhone you just bought. Hand it over, I need to post some stuff and make a few phone calls. No worries though. I'll give it off to the next person I meet who needs it.

[Oslohiker]

Then the law just isn't being enforced as written.



Yes, but





You are allowed to roam where they let you. Just so happens they let you roam most places. A country full of courteous respectful people that can happen. Here the owner would get sued because someone did something dumb and got hurt.

It won't work and won't happen here. We have plenty public spaces.

Municipalities agrees with such prohibitions in very rare cases. Since we have the freedom to roam, people use different areas and there will not be damages in the typical case. Criminal acts will not lead to a prohibition. A few places they deny bicyclists to use tails. The government will try to pass a bill now to remove the possibility to state such prohibitions.

[Oslohiker]

Cool. Then you would not mind random strangers crashing at your place for 3 day stints, right? Hey, that cool new laptop or iPhone you just bought. Hand it over, I need to post some stuff and make a few phone calls. No worries though. I'll give it off to the next person I meet who needs it.

Why is this even close to be relevant? The freedom to roam act is about using uncultivated areas.

[Nodust]

Municipalities agrees with such prohibitions in very rare cases. Since we have the freedom to roam, people use different areas and there will not be damages in the typical case. Criminal acts will not lead to a prohibition. A few places they deny bicyclists to use tails. The government will try to pass a bill now to remove the possibility to state such prohibitions.

It sounds like it works great in Norway. But you can't even camp in public owned municipal parks here. Why? It would be abused by everyone.

Unfortunately we aren't as civilized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Odd Man Out]

In Sweden it is in the Constitution and called All Men's Right. It is not a law but a constitutional right. It applies to vacant undeveloped land. However there are exceptions for natural preserves. For example some national parks prohibit camping to help preserve sensitive areas. But as already pointed out it can't work in the US because of our arrogant selfishness (oops I mean "value of individual freedom"), whether it is the land owner who wants to exclude everyone from his private domain or the slob who would abuse the privilege because rules don't apply to him.

[rickb]

Why is this even close to be relevant? The freedom to roam act is about using uncultivated areas.

This is a facinating thread.

I really appreciate learning something new about how things work in your country.

Where I live people are guaranteed access to the ocean shoreline -- between the high tide and low tide levels and to so-called "great ponds" which are defined by a certain number of acres. Since those areas tend to attract homes of the well-to-do you sometimes see legal pushback over even these minor accommodations.

We are a country that believes strongly about private property rights-- except when new football stadiums (and even shopping malls) need to be built. Then we fully support our government's taking of those lands for our enjoyment and the so-called common good.

I kind of like your country's approach.

[firesign]

Not everybody that would have the freedom to roam would respect that right, and some would commit criminal acts whilst roaming, e.g. criminal damage, arson, assault, rape and murder. Its the world that we live in. Assuming that there are no more criminals: Who is responsible for cleaning up after some hikers/travelers/campers (whist being free to roam) have left their rubbish on the private land; the owner? or a coalition of volunteers who give up their own time to compensate for those who do not give a $hit?

So, we live in an imperfect world where we need laws to protect us from the lowest common denominators, i.e. criminals and idiots; we need to have trespass laws to protect the owner of the property and that is why we cannot have freedom to roam.

Perhaps one day we will evolve and we shall not need such laws.

[rickb]

Not everybody that would have the freedom to roam would respect that right, and some would commit criminal acts whilst roaming, e.g. criminal damage, arson, assault, rape and murder. Its the world that we live in. Assuming that there are no more criminals: Who is responsible for cleaning up after some hikers/travelers/campers (whist being free to roam) have left their rubbish on the private land; the owner? or a coalition of volunteers who give up their own time to compensate for those who do not give a $hit?

So, we live in an imperfect world where we need laws to protect us from the lowest common denominators, i.e. criminals and idiots; we need to have trespass laws to protect the owner of the property and that is why we cannot have freedom to roam.

Perhaps one day we will evolve and we shall not need such laws.


I think most of Sportsmen in Maine would agree that the have the right to hunt, fish, trap and ride snow machines on the vast tracts of private land that are not explicitly posted.

[rocketsocks]

Not everybody that would have the freedom to roam would respect that right, and some would commit criminal acts whilst roaming, e.g. criminal damage, arson, assault, rape and murder. Its the world that we live in. Assuming that there are no more criminals: Who is responsible for cleaning up after some hikers/travelers/campers (whist being free to roam) have left their rubbish on the private land; the owner? or a coalition of volunteers who give up their own time to compensate for those who do not give a $hit?

So, we live in an imperfect world where we need laws to protect us from the lowest common denominators, i.e. criminals and idiots; we need to have trespass laws to protect the owner of the property and that is why we cannot have freedom to roam.

Perhaps one day we will evolve and we shall not need such laws....and that's exactly why I mention decency in my first post, you want decency you pay for it, i.e. "owning property" and making the rules.

[rocketsocks]

...and that's exactly why I mention decency in my first post, you want decency you pay for it, i.e. "owning property" and making the rules.correction, third post.


i find the whole concept of owning land a bit of a farce, but the laws of the land hinge on the ideas and mutual understanding of a modern society, and with those we maintain decency and an expectation reed on to do with your land as you see fit. Don't pay your taxes and the land your family has own for 400 years will be sucked up, so freedom ain't really free is it.

[Dogwood]

I really do like the idea of not needing permits or paying to visit parks; I do wish we had that here in the U.S. but it seems like, at least what you hear on this site, that many people love the permit/pay system. Crazy :D

Not singling you out(this is more for Oslohiker) with a $10 donation to the PCTA, which is involved in countless activities administrating and protecting the Pacific Crest Trail, one can hike for almost 2700 miles along the entire length of the western U.S. coast. That's a lot of roaming! Some conditions apply, as again conditions also apply to the freedom to roam law in Norway, but one can visit 25 U.S. National Forests and 7 U.S. National Parks. Not exactly free but what a GREAT U.S. bargain hey? The PCT also crosses private lands as does the AT(to a small extent) and CDT. I can add to that list another 30 U.S. named trails and hiking routes without much deep thought that exist as benefitted by private property owners. Assuming there is no or little cooperation among private property owners here in the U.S. and outdoors people engaging in such activities as CONDITIONAL CONSCIENTIOUS hiking and camping because practicing it here is different than under a law in another country is nonsense. It's not based on actual extensive U.S. backpacking and other outdoor activity experiences.

The point here is that IF it is one's desire to roam rather than complain and magnify something that can easily be solved there are few better places on the planet to experience such a high degree and diversity of roaming/hiking opportunities as here in the U.S. Private property issues is an issue that can easily be legally circumnavigated here in the U.S.! This notion that the U.S. is rife with selfish private property curmudgeons is nonsense in practice. People from around the globe come here to the U.S. in droves for the VAST opportunities to freely roam.

[Pedaling Fool]

I mentioned it before, but should emphasize that this is something that is deeply embedded in the culture of Norway (and a few other countries in that region), at least from what I've read and it's practice supposedly goes back to ancient times. I think it works well for them, but with our population numbers it just wouldn't work here; just look to Oregon and various other problems along the AT and so many other places. Interesting reading: https://www.visitnorway.com/plan-your-trip/travel-tips/right-of-access/



However, there are initiatives that are in the basic spirit of FtR https://www.imba.com/resources/liability/recreational-use

[Dogwood]

PF, you are getting at an important point. The situations that exist in several significant aspects pertaining to free roaming, whatever that may mean to different cultures, is different in different places.

[lonehiker]

Not singling you out(this is more for Oslohiker) with a $10 donation to the PCTA, which is involved in countless activities administrating and protecting the Pacific Crest Trail, one can hike for almost 2700 miles along the entire length of the western U.S. coast. That's a lot of roaming! Some conditions apply, as again conditions also apply to the freedom to roam law in Norway, but one can visit 25 U.S. National Forests and 7 U.S. National Parks. Not exactly free but what a GREAT U.S. bargain hey? The PCT also crosses private lands as does the AT(to a small extent) and CDT. I can add to that list another 30 U.S. named trails and hiking routes without much deep thought that exist as benefitted by private property owners. Assuming there is no or little cooperation among private property owners here in the U.S. and outdoors people engaging in such activities as CONDITIONAL CONSCIENTIOUS hiking and camping because practicing it here is different than under a law in another country is nonsense. It's not based on actual extensive U.S. backpacking and other outdoor activity experiences.

The point here is that IF it is one's desire to roam rather than complain and magnify something that can easily be solved there are few better places on the planet to experience such a high degree and diversity of roaming/hiking opportunities as here in the U.S. Private property issues is an issue that can easily be legally circumnavigated here in the U.S.! This notion that the U.S. is rife with selfish private property curmudgeons is nonsense in practice. People from around the globe come here to the U.S. in droves for the VAST opportunities to freely roam.

Permit/pay systems, or use taxes, whatever you desire to call them, are by far the most equitable way to tax (read fund). Why should non-hiking tax payers bear the burden of your $200 (or $1,500) thru-hike? On another note and why I quoted Dog's post, I actually mostly agree with what he has written here. Unusual in that generally I think his responses are gibberish.

[Pedaling Fool]

PF, you are getting at an important point. The situations that exist in several significant aspects pertaining to free roaming, whatever that may mean to different cultures, is different in different places.
I guess the real question is: Why do we have such a problem here with people trashing places, be it public or private land?

This has been a problem for a while and seems to be growing, but why is this happening in our culture. My simplistic answer is population. The larger the population the more problems you have from dirtbags. We have a population of over 300-million, Norway has a population of just over 5-million. So any dirtbags they have will be slight, compared to a country with 300-million.

However, that is, as I said, simplistic and it's not the entire reason, culture does play in. So is there something in our culture that is a major factor? Interesting question that I don't have the answer to.

[Oslohiker]

Ok, a few more words about how this works.
Who maintains the trails? It is different organisations. Everything from local groups of volunteers to the the counties. But more often there are skiing/hikers organisations. There are one huge national, and many local. This is serious stuff. Not only do they maintain the trails but they also have a vast network of huts/cabins that you can visit. You really don't have to carry much when you hike in Norway. Mainly extra clothes and emergency stuff. The huts can be manned or unmanned. But they have beds and are stocked full of food. Paying for food is based on the honer system on the unmanned huts. Backpacker.com seem to like it. Even very close to Oslo you find them, a lot of them. We really don't have open shelters like you do on the Appalachian trail. http://www.backpacker.com/trips/international/norway-tested/

How is in financed? Most people have a membership or several in those organisations, but they are heavily supported by the government. A membership gives you a key to the unmanned huts, and lover prices on the manned. This is really low priced. Not everything is expensive in Norway. If you don't use the huts you don't need to pay anything. Even ski trails in winter time is free by law. If you maintain a ski trail you have to let everyone use it for free, even if it is on your land.

One thing you will not see in Norway are park ranger or park visitor centres. We don't see any need for them.
If someone litter, I think it is the land owner that has to clean it up. But people don't behave like that.

This is an example of one of those "huts" (consisting of several buildings):

35020

This is how the national hiking organisation present them selves:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrGuI1UDVk

[Odd Man Out]

I guess the real question is: Why do we have such a problem here with people trashing places, be it public or private land?

This has been a problem for a while and seems to be growing, but why is this happening in our culture. My simplistic answer is population. The larger the population the more problems you have from dirtbags. We have a population of over 300-million, Norway has a population of just over 5-million. So any dirtbags they have will be slight, compared to a country with 300-million.

However, that is, as I said, simplistic and it's not the entire reason, culture does play in. So is there something in our culture that is a major factor? Interesting question that I don't have the answer to.

We just returned from a trip to Europe Andy wife immediately noticed how in general public place we're much more tidy over there. This morning we went to our local Memorial Day parade where politicians throw candy to children. During a lull in the action a kid ran out into the street to pick up an unclaimed goody. Finding it was just a wrapper he threw it back down. A minute later another kid does the same thing. Neither parent saw the opportunity to teach their child the value in picking up the garbage. My observation is that the desire to take care of public spaces is related to the people's relationship with government. Where there is a history of effective government, everything is neat as a pin (Nederlands eg). But where there is a history of poor governmwnt, (Romania), public spaces were not well kept but private spaces were well beautiful (balcony gardens eg).

[SWODaddy]

That and eminent domain. Land was actually taken (forced buyout) from people to establish portions of the AT using eminent domain.

Not to mention the National Parks. Many of the PATC cabins were homes that people we kicked out of when SNP was created.

[tdoczi]

Since you claim I am ill informed, that indirectly means that you are informed. Please inform me with your information.

ive hiked all over the US (have you?) and regularly meet europeans who have come here to hike. i dare say you cant go to a major hiking area in this country without meeting a few.

[Dogwood]

Pedaling Fool relates a hugely significant stat to bear in mind on why different systems of management styles of potential hiking areas exist in Norway and the U.S. In 2015 in the U.S National Park system alone there were about 300 MILLION visitors. Again, these are NOT, definitely not, the only places in the U.S. people visit to experience outdoor activities such as hiking/roaming/trekking, not by a far margin. Compare that to the total population of just over 5 million for the entire country of Norway. Further, consider the size in sq miles of the U.S. is 3.8 million and that of Norway is 150,000. Vastly different sized areas being managed for 'free roaming!" Numbers mean something in your analysis Oslohiker.

Considering the sheer size of the U.S. alone one can certainly certainly find huge swaths of National Forests, Wilderness Area, etc to "freely roam' IF IF one truly wanted instead of merely assuming free roaming is not allowed in the U.S. Come to the U.S. and find out for yourself.

[CamelMan]

Statements like this sound groovy and peachy until we all show up at your place and seize your shart, take all your food, remove you from where you sleep, and put you out in the rain. Then, we'll see just how much you believe having this concept of no one should have private property.

All the stuff you mentioned is personal property, which I do believe in. I don't believe in private property in land or the means of production. I don't know what you mean by "groovy" but I'm no hippy. I'm a libertarian socialist, hence I have an anarchist conception (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3#secb31) of which property somebody is entitled to. Does that sound better? ;)

(Btw: those actions are things landlords do all the time, because of private property. It's enough to make somebody say that no one should have private property.)

[rickb]

ive hiked all over the US (have you?) and regularly meet europeans who have come here to hike. i dare say you cant go to a major hiking area in this country without meeting a few.his

This list of AT 2000 milers confirms that a few Europeans have come to the US to hike.

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/community/hiker-lounge/2000-miler-listing

Not all that many, however.

[Connie]

North America? Pick your favorite terrain, here.

The 1,200 mile Pacific Northwest Scenic National Trail scarcely marked trail can be very much a wilderness experience.

The Northern California - Oregon "Bigfoot Trail" is a trail to consider as a serious "nature walk".

Our high desert country, as public land, available for recreational use, could be a "roam".

[rafe]

I have seen many bicyclists who think it is right to camp next to a church.

Not so odd is it, given that churches and other places of worship are often seen and used as sanctuary and refuge, indeed the sanctuary is where services take place, no? Several AT hostels are church-run. It's an ancient tradition, not a bad one as these things go.

[CamelMan]

Not everybody that would have the freedom to roam would respect that right, and some would commit criminal acts whilst roaming, e.g. criminal damage, arson, assault, rape and murder.

Those criminals aren't going to respect your private property sign, either.

[Connie]

I mentioned camping next to churches, because the link article about camping in Norway mentioned how disrespectful it was to set up a tent next to a church, the fact there was a churchyard graveyard added to the distress.

Things are not universal.

I am glad Norway has a nice situation, for hikers.

I know cabins, for public use, stocked with emergency food, that leave a note asking if you use the cabin, you leave some unused shelf stable food items for emergengy food for others.

The trail work I have done in the Bob Marshall Wilderness was approved, and a part of East Slope Backcountry Horsemen. I was loaned a jackass, once. the other time, I was loaned an Arabian stallion. Fun.

More recently, I can't get anyone interested in "trail grooming".

Why? Inconsiderate and ill-prepared hikers.

If that changes and hikers are not complete idiots, relying on rescue, enthusiasm for keeping trails open will return. Meanwhile, trails are being allowed to become overgrown with brush.

If you think about it, why should a volunteer do all that hard work for jerks, and, why should volunteers rescue ill-prepared "hikers" with a sense of entitlement, especially so, at risk of their life.

I was a co-founder of the Outdoor Program, at my college. We used our budget to have a lending equipment room. We had sign-up sheets for hikes: easy to difficult, with the trip leaders having a required equipment list and doing a shakedown of equipment before the hike. There were even meetings for a hike, before the hike.

It was an effective program, for getting new people out in the mountains for a good experience.

[Uncle Joe]

The right to property is an extension of our culture of freedom. I wouldn't trade it because I think it is an important right. I respect the freedom to roam Norway enjoys but I don't necessarily think it's better. There are pros and cons on both sides but we're different for a reason and it's because of those pros and cons.

[Oslohiker]

Pedaling Fool relates a hugely significant stat to bear in mind on why different systems of management styles of potential hiking areas exist in Norway and the U.S. In 2015 in the U.S National Park system alone there were about 300 MILLION visitors. Again, these are NOT, definitely not, the only places in the U.S. people visit to experience outdoor activities such as hiking/roaming/trekking, not by a far margin. Compare that to the total population of just over 5 million for the entire country of Norway. Further, consider the size in sq miles of the U.S. is 3.8 million and that of Norway is 150,000. Vastly different sized areas being managed for 'free roaming!" Numbers mean something in your analysis Oslohiker.

Considering the sheer size of the U.S. alone one can certainly certainly find huge swaths of National Forests, Wilderness Area, etc to "freely roam' IF IF one truly wanted instead of merely assuming free roaming is not allowed in the U.S. Come to the U.S. and find out for yourself.

Does the size matter? Why should it?

[Connie]

Seriously?

10 people walking in 1 square mile.

1 person walking in 10 square miles.

1 person walking in 100 square miles.

No difference?

[futureatwalker]

Interesting thread.

As in Norway, we have a similar land access rights in Scotland. Essentially, you can access much of the countryside for walking, etc. It seems to work well.

There are, of course, restrictions. You can't camp or hike in people's back yards (or gardens, as they are called here). You can't camp in fields where there are livestock, or crops. Land owners can restrict access during hunting times. You can't sue a landowner if you have an accident.

The key I think is responsible use and respect for the landowner. In exchange for greater access, there is a responsibility to treat the land and its owners with respect. So it goes both ways.

[firesign]

The Native American Indians used their right to roam for centuries and to live with and respect nature. They could not understand the Settlers obsession with ownership and acquiring more property and wealth. The country was then carved up, sold off and the rest is now history (using the British Imperialist Blueprint!)

Private ownership of Property: The crux of this discussion really comes down to one's political position and whether you believe in an individual's right to own goods and property through one's labor. This is a pretty old concept created by the likes of Adam Smith and John Locke and is the cornerstone of the current human social system. Politically, if one is an Anarchist or Socialist, then you would not necessarily agree with the private ownership of property; whilst Capitalists and Fascists would have an opposite opinion.

If we could live within the same social system as the American Indians once had, then we would see everything as One and ownership of private property as separation from One. Instead we have a system based on Debt=Slavery with an 'illusion' of ownership and we need laws to protect this Freedom. 'None are hopelessly enslaved as those that falsely believe that they are free' (Johann Goethe)

If you want something different, then vote for it.

[rickb]

Does anyone know how much of the land on which we American hikers are free to roam was taken by eminent domain?

While I fully support these takings for the public good, and appreciate just how much of the AT was established by working together with cooperative land owners, not everyone was a willing seller right?

I don't know much about this, but I seem to recall that the Federal Government even took lands from a Catholic monastary that had historically fed thru hikers (me included) and had given us a "cell" to sleep in. The details on that are lost on me.

I also seem to recall entire communities being displaced to create one or two National Parks over which the AT passes.

I even seem to remember a stretch of trail where the bitterness over forced takings was so strong that locals booby trapped the trail with hanging fish hooks and vandalized cars for decades.

I mention this to suggest that when it comes to private property rights, there seems to be no absolutes in our country either.

[Connie]

The Native American Indians used their right to roam for centuries and to live with and respect nature. They could not understand the Settlers obsession with ownership and acquiring more property and wealth. The country was then carved up, sold off and the rest is now history (using the British Imperialist Blueprint!)

Private ownership of Property: The crux of this discussion really comes down to one's political position and whether you believe in an individual's right to own goods and property through one's labor. This is a pretty old concept created by the likes of Adam Smith and John Locke and is the cornerstone of the current human social system. Politically, if one is an Anarchist or Socialist, then you would not necessarily agree with the private ownership of property; whilst Capitalists and Fascists would have an opposite opinion.

If we could live within the same social system as the American Indians once had, then we would see everything as One and ownership of private property as separation from One. Instead we have a system based on Debt=Slavery with an 'illusion' of ownership and we need laws to protect this Freedom. 'None are hopelessly enslaved as those that falsely believe that they are free' (Johann Goethe)

If you want something different, then vote for it.

Pulp fiction.

Native americans did not have unity. They fought over where they lived, and hunted.

They had very much a sense of ownership and agreement who owned what: for some, women owned property.

I would think the men talked among themselves like this: do we tell these men, the women own the property?

I know very well, this is true because I am close to it.

And, there was nothing "noble savage" about it. They are people. People, not savages.

The unity of native american peoples of North America, as much as it exists today, is the result of still being alive after all these years. Even so, it is not a "we are indians" unity. There are so many differences.

I participated in a DQ University conference, Harvard University conference on treaties, and AIM, and U.N. Special Session on Peace 1980-81 as a special assistant to thr Hopi traditional elders, at their request and all expenses paid by their arrangement. Maybe sponsors, I don't know. I didn't ask. I was brought to Hopi by Thomas Banyaca. I was invited to attend a Hopi traditional elders meeting.

I did only what asked, after attending that meeting. I added nothing, only doing what I was asked. I imposed nothing.

The "white man" or "european values" didn't do them harm: colonials did.

There are immigrants and there are colonials.

This was true, everywhere colonials went. Who are the colonials?

They impose on everyone else, taking, exploiting their perceived "weaknesses" of others.

For instance, if you are reluctant to kill, they are not.

Again, who are the colonials? Who are "royalty"? The answer: the same.

I have so many direct ancestors that were Kings, Queens, an Empress, Princes, Princesses, and other "royals" it is embarassing because my values are from my father's side, my mother's side - "not so much". I know full well their deceit, treachery, murders, and villainry and how applied.

So don't tell the emigres who ran from their oppression it is their "own" philosophy.

We do not use deceit or treachery. We are people, too, making every effort to live free of tyranny.

The fact is, we were "adopted". They were not.

[egilbe]

Pulp fiction.

Native americans did not have unity. They fought over where they lived, and hunted.

They had very much a sense of ownership and agreement who owned what: for some, women owned property.

I would think the men talked among themselves like this: do we tell these men, the women own the property?

I know very well, this is true because I am close to it.

And, there was nothing "noble savage" about it. They are people. People, not savages.

The unity of native american peoples of North America, as much as it exists today, is the result of still being alive after all these years. Even so, it is not a "we are indians" unity. There are so many differences.

I participated in a DQ University conference, Harvard University conference on treaties, and AIM, and U.N. Special Session on Peace 1980-81 as a special assistant to thr Hopi traditional elders, at their request and all expenses paid by their arrangement. Maybe sponsors, I don't know. I didn't ask. I was brought to Hopi by Thomas Banyaca. I was invited to attend a Hopi traditional elders meeting.

I did only what asked, after attending that meeting. I added nothing, only doing what I was asked. I imposed nothing.

The "white man" or "european values" didn't do them harm: colonials did.

There are immigrants and there are colonials.

This was true, everywhere colonials went. Who are the colonials?

They impose on everyone else, taking, exploiting their perceived "weaknesses" of others.

For instance, if you are reluctant to kill, they are not.

Again, who are the colonials? Who are "royalty"? The answer: the same.

I have so many direct ancestors that were Kings, Queens, an Empress, Princes, Princesses, and other "royals" it is embarassing because my values are from my father's side, my mother's side - "not so much". I know full well their deceit, treachery, murders, and villainry and how applied.

So don't tell the emigres who ran from their oppression it is their "own" philosophy.

We do not use deceit or treachery. We are people, too, making every effort to live free of tyranny.

The fact is, we were "adopted". They were not.

I think you are talking about the 1%ers, but I'm not sure.

It boggles the mind that Americans are so adamant about protecting property rights, when the Colonials took everything that was here from someone else. We created a system to protect stolen property.

[Pedaling Fool]

Yeah, the idea that Indians (or any people) lived in harmony is just wrong. All people fight and especially when it comes to food sources and land. Land ownership and laws prevent wars.

We're all the same, there a no noble populations.

http://www.desertusa.com/ind1/ind_new/ind19.html


And from the back of the Spanish horse, the Southern Utes perfected the art of the mounted attack, "moving out of their mountain fortresses to raid other Indian groups or towns and villages to the south," according to the Introduction to "Ute Tribal History" in the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s internet web site. For centuries, the Utes inflicted raids on their neighbors, taking booty and captives. They sold abducted women and children as slaves to the Spanish. They suffered raids by their neighbors, surrendering booty and captives. They formed alliances of convenience with intermittent enemies, fighting wars of common purpose. They made treaties of convenience with Euroamerican settlers, joining campaigns against former Indian allies. "There are nearly 100 reports of eastern and southern Utes raiding Pueblo, Apache, Hopi, and Navajo settlements in what is now New Mexico and Arizona," said Callaway and his fellow authors. Undoubtedly, the Utes conducted many other raids which were never reported.

Throughout the middle of the 17th century, the Utes fought the Hopis, according to the Southern Ute Indian’s "Chronology of Ute History." In 1637, they fought the Spanish for the first time. In 1692, they allied with the Apaches, Hopis and Paiutes to fight the Spanish. Through the first half of the 18th century, they attacked Puebloan and Spanish settlements, often in alliances with the Comanches and Apaches. In 1754, they drove Navajos from the upper San Juan River drainage basin, and 20 years later, they allied themselves with the Navajos to battle the Hopis. They retained intermittent alliances and fought intermittent battles with the Navajos until 1863, when Ute warriors joined with American forces to defeat the Navajos and force them to take the dreadful "Long Walk" – the Navajo equivalent to the Bataan Death March – to the Fort Sumner concentration camp on eastern New Mexico’s Pecos River.

[rafe]

Yeah, the idea that Indians (or any people) lived in harmony is just wrong. All people fight and especially when it comes to food sources and land. Land ownership and laws prevent wars.


Seriously? On what planet?

[Connie]

It boggles the mind that Americans are so adamant about protecting property rights, when the Colonials took everything that was here from someone else. We created a system to protect stolen property.

1%? Americans? No one here "invented" property ownership.

I have been thinking, for some time, this thread is disengenuous.

[Connie]

Wars are wars.

The reason may be some offense. It can be religion. It can be inequities of "trade" imposed by embargos.

It can be raw aggression, without justification..

It can be because of interference and meddling in others countries own affairs.

[Pedaling Fool]

Seriously? On what planet?I really don't understand your comment. Exactly what are you questioning? Do you question the fact that all people fight?

[rafe]

I really don't understand your comment. Exactly what are you questioning? Do you question the fact that all people fight?

No, the notion that land ownership prevents wars. I suppose it's true at some levels. For example, I don't engage in open warfare with my neighbors here on Hilltop Drive. But that's mostly because it's a nice well to do suburban New England town where all the kids are above average. We're all living large.

Have you heard the word Lebensraum?

Borders are fluid, always have been. All empires crumble.

[CamelMan]

It boggles the mind that Americans are so adamant about protecting property rights, when the Colonials took everything that was here from someone else. We created a system to protect stolen property.

Yes, it was definitely stolen. (And then given as a government subsidy to railroads and settlers.) This kind of theft of the commons goes back to the British parliament's Enclosure Acts and is required in all class societies, so that people don't have access to the commons and are forced to sell their labor time to people who own property. Americans are so adamant about protecting property rights because this country was founded by landed bourgeoisie in the wake of their revolution against a king. It wasn't a revolution for popular rule by the rabble (or whatever we would call "democracy" today), it was to secure their bourgeois rights. In the Declaration of Independence, Madison wanted to write "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" as inalienable rights. In the beginning, only propertied white males could vote.

[Pedaling Fool]

No, the notion that land ownership prevents wars. I suppose it's true at some levels. For example, I don't engage in open warfare with my neighbors here on Hilltop Drive. But that's mostly because it's a nice well to do suburban New England town where all the kids are above average. We're all living large.

Have you heard the word Lebensraum?

Borders are fluid, always have been. All empires crumble.
Yes, I was talking more locally and I said Prevent, not Eliminate.

With respect to the larger picture, such as China's land grab that is currently going on, laws are not enough, you need a strong military. That's why our strong military is crucial.

[rafe]

That's why our strong military is crucial.

You just got through telling us how land ownership prevents wars. :rolleyes:

[Pedaling Fool]

You just got through telling us how land ownership prevents wars. :rolleyes:
Maybe I should have used the term, Conflicts instead and yes, land ownership prevents tons of conflicts, but I emphasize prevents, not eliminates.

Even in these countries with Freedom to Roam laws, they have land ownership, there's a reason for that. It prevents conflicts. Do away with land ownership and there is no doubt that land conflicts will become very common place, even in your comfortable New England. Even in Norway, the landowner has a recourse if people go way outside the laws.

[Connie]

British colonialists were not the first, or parcel out land to settlers.

The colonists assigned other settlers land to English, recording that settler was killed by indians long after indians had been killed or pushed out. Not everyone brought here knew the people who built the house and additional buildings and put in the agriculture were killed by force of arms of the colonialist's.

The settlers, from many nations, were here first, ships arriving in small groups.

The colonists, in fact, pushed out everyone they found here, and we fought three wars to throw off their attempts to be the government.

The USA has established so much for anyone to use, because we are adamant about freedoms. We could not have these things in the countries we left. Only "royalty" "elite" had the recreation and enjoyment of the land.

Of course, there are rules. So what.

There is no truly "free to roam" in Norway, either.

There are rules.

I suggest try the "free to roam" notion in former U.S.S.R.

They have a vast forest. Even so, put your tent at a churchyard or in "open country" and find out how well that goes for you.

It doesn't matter, if Canada, New Zealand, Brazil, North Africa.. try it, and see.

[Dogwood]

Pedaling Fool relates a hugely significant stat to bear in mind on why different systems of management styles of potential hiking areas exist in Norway and the U.S. In 2015 in the U.S National Park system alone there were about 300 MILLION visitors. Again, these are NOT, definitely not, the only places in the U.S. people visit to experience outdoor activities such as hiking/roaming/trekking, not by a far margin. Compare that to the total population of just over 5 million for the entire country of Norway. Further, consider the size in sq miles of the U.S. is 3.8 million and that of Norway is 150,000. Vastly different sized areas being managed for 'free roaming!" Numbers mean something in your analysis Oslohiker.

Considering the sheer size of the U.S. alone one can certainly certainly find huge swaths of National Forests, Wilderness Area, etc to "freely roam' IF IF one truly wanted instead of merely assuming free roaming is not allowed in the U.S. Come to the U.S. and find out for yourself.


Does the size matter? Why should it?


I'll echo Connie's comment, "seriously?"

Consider Great Smoky Mountains National Park alone, about 300 sq miles, received more than 10 MILLION visitors in 2014 verses an entire country population of about 5 MILLION of Norway at about 150,000 sq miles. These numbers alone without adding in different cultural factors, national economic and political systems, etc. play significant roles in how land is managed. Don't you think so??? We can dice it up and micro analyze it all we want numbers alone tell a tale.

What it seems you have issue with is more of the specific different conditions under which one can "freely roam" in Norway verse the U.S. As said, IF IF it is truly your desire to roam in the U.S. there is ample opportunity to do it. This is why we travel and hike in different countries, geographical areas perhaps even in the same nation, etc...because we have the opportunity to experience differences. Embracing the differences can make us better. :)

[rocketsocks]

When in roam!

[Tipi Walter]

When in roam!

The great city of Roam, founded by the two backpacking brothers Rectalus and Reamus, raised by goats in the Mt Rogers crest zone.

[rocketsocks]

The great city of Roam, founded by the two backpacking brothers Rectalus and Reamus, raised by goats in the Mt Rogers crest zone.
...back in the Boone days?

[Tipi Walter]

...back in the Boone days?

Very close to Boone. I was born in Roam but suckled by Boone.

[rocketsocks]

Maybe I should have used the term, Conflicts instead and yes, land ownership prevents tons of conflicts, but I emphasize prevents, not eliminates.

Even in these countries with Freedom to Roam laws, they have land ownership, there's a reason for that. It prevents conflicts. Do away with land ownership and there is no doubt that land conflicts will become very common place, even in your comfortable New England. Even in Norway, the landowner has a recourse if people go way outside the laws.I agree. Recently saw Todd Rundgren in concert (way cool dude that hasn't missed a beat though he's aged) and the thread reminded me of a favorite song "Range War" it tells a story that took place in our history when the movement west was going on, and dispute over land was fraught with blood, perhaps it could have been avoided if only they were kin, or at least friends. This is but one story in our short history as a country, others will tell another...enjoy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtySupAj7hU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtySupAj7hU

[Pedaling Fool]

... My observation is that the desire to take care of public spaces is related to the people's relationship with government. Where there is a history of effective government, everything is neat as a pin (Nederlands eg). But where there is a history of poor governmwnt, (Romania), public spaces were not well kept but private spaces were well beautiful (balcony gardens eg).I'm not sure how to characterize the people's relationship with the Thailand Govt, but I know you don't spit out gum in that country:D Cops love to cite people for that. BTW, Bangkok is a really neat city:)

[Pedaling Fool]

BTW, I've got a question for the OP:

Is there much graffiti in Scandinavia? We seem to have a debate here in America if this is a form of littering/destruction of property or art. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/the-history-of-american-graffiti-from-subway-car-to-gallery/

[Skyline]

Americans value their privacy, and their property rights, far too much for this to work here. Not saying they're right, just saying they do.

[rocketsocks]

BTW, I've got a question for the OP:

Is there much graffiti in Scandinavia? We seem to have a debate here in America if this is a form of littering/destruction of property or art. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/the-history-of-american-graffiti-from-subway-car-to-gallery/...and just to add that on the trail in Pennsylvania at Lehigh Gap there is a very large American flag that was painted high up on a rock face and can be seen some distance away, and while I like the painterly aspect of it, to me it's graffi.