Would a federal freedom to roam law work in USA?

[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/dokume...-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

[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!

[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!

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.