Would a federal freedom to roam law work in USA?

[Kaptainkriz]

http://nhqha.com/wp-content/uploads/...CurrentUse.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/Nationa...ails%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/...-wild-camping/

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

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/...ubles-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. Darwin Award

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/...ubles-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. Darwin Award

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/05/...ubles-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.