Would a federal freedom to roam law work in USA?

[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.

[Pedaling Fool]

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

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.