Of note is the case mentioned at the top of the article has been resolved. The defendants where found not-guilty of the charges of trespassing, and a related charge is expected to be dropped. [1]
No idea if this sets any sort of precedent. I suspect not, given how much of a quagmire all of this is.
When the solar eclipse happened a few years ago, my friend used the geo data from their company to compute BLM land which overlapped with the "path of totality", so that we could find a free camping spot from which we could experience the solar eclipse at it's most impressive. One of the constraints on his search was that the land also needed to be accessible from a public road, because the natives take these land rights very very seriously.
> because the natives take these land rights very very seriously.
This is likely because if they stop enforcing them, they can lose it. If they allow people access as a matter of course, after some time in many places this will create a public right to access, which they can no longer restrict. This creates a real, material loss to landowners.
You might want to finish TFA, as there are good reasons (as well as bad ones) listed further down. In short, people using public land apparently don't always stay on public land, and one rancher describes the negative effects of this. For example, people using private driveways for parking.
>people using public land apparently don't always stay on public land
Yes that is one of the bad reasons. Put up "private property" posts or similar. If you have such an enormous plot of private land that you cannot manage to enforce a stranger sticking their toe out onto it, and you for some reason really need to enforce to that extent-- that is on you. Consider scaling down your private property.
As for hunting on private property, that seems to a separate issue from the concept of landlocked public land. That's practically a guns issue. Anyway, that doesn't give private property owners dominion over public land.
You're conflating who needs to take care of that - if someone on public land doesn't stay on public land, when they are out they can be charged.
I don't see why you need to change the narrative to be "OH WOE IS ME, THEY TOUCHED THINE PUBLIC, but pissed on thine private a bit". That can be charged with evidence.
People MAYBE doing a crime is not a crime, and is a fucked up premise for you to persue, I'm disappointed in you.
I hate to break it to you - the govt can define walking paths and public lines.
It's going to be difficult to hold anything resembling a conversation with someone that seems to have missed the key points of the article, if it was read at all. Enjoy the rest of your day.
When they are out is literally "When they are in violation of the law" and you're sitting here saying here saying "WOW I CAN'T WAIT TO CHARGE THEM UNTIL THEY CRIME".
Do you want to fuck people up before they commit a crime? DO YOU WANT TO CHARGE TRESPASSING BEFORE THEY TRESPASS?
Several civil rights movements have logged in to see what happens next.
TFA specifically says, no, they are not able because resources are thin. One rancher is quoted as saying that if the enforcement problem were fixed, they wouldn't have a problem with corner-crossing.
It's an article worth reading, that's all I'm saying.
In Maine, great ponds are considered public and you must allow public access even if your land surrounds the water. This does not mean that you have the right to trample their farms or ride your dirt bike, but you must allow access at least by foot. I think this should be the model for all public land.
In the UK this principle applies even to private land in most cases. Not people’s back gardens, but if you own a large amount of land, they’ll almost always be public rights of way through it. And even where there’s not, you’ll usually be alright crossing it so long as you’re not making a nuisance of yourself.
The idea that so much land is privately owned and shut off to everyone else seems downright dystopian to me.
I'd say a rule that you can cross private land that's not in active use (built, fenced off, etc), but camping or hunting on that private land is not allowed (without permission), would sound quite reasonable to me.
I live within walking distance of a lake. We take frequent walks there. If I so much as touch the water with my big toe, I could get a ticket/citation. If I insist, I could be arrested. If I jump into the water (even wearing a floatation vest), same thing. You are only allowed to be in the water while lifeguards are present, and only for a few seconds if you fall off your paddleboard or something like that. If you are walking along the shore with water up to your ankles, lifeguard or not, you could be cited.
No, this is not a source of drinking water at all.
Every time I go to the lake I have the same thought: So much for "land of the free".
Note: Yes, of course, I understand this is mostly because people have sued and extracted money from the State/County, etc. That's likely the root cause. The solution isn't to ban everyone.
This makes zero sense to me. There are thousands of lakes in the Sierras that are on "state" or "county" or "federal" land. None of those are subject to the bizarre rules you posit. There must be something different about who actually owns/manages the lake you refer to? Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression that specific rules that exist for a particular beach you use for access(and accompanying watery recreational area) apply to the whole lake?
> Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression
Not the case. We've been using the lake for 25 years. I know most of the lifeguards, including the director of the department. They know me well because I used to get into the lake on my kayak with a dry-suit in full-blown Santa Ana winds. In other words, over the years, they came to understand it was unlikely they would have to rescue me or my kids.
Anyhow, one day I was there with my German Shepherds just hanging out, walking on the beech. The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you for getting your feet into the water anywhere in this lake". That led to something like "You have to be fucking kidding me". "No, I am not". And then we had a conversation.
He didn't like it any more than I did. Now that I remember, he did make mention of people drowning and lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that's the genesis of the regulation. While I can't find the rule in writing, I recall having seen a document with this information (this was probably 15 years ago).
>The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you
So long as the legal system allows leeches to extract money from the state because they slipped on a rock that was underwater, and so long as the county doesn't see any point in spending the resources to vigorously fight or counter-sue, yes that is unfortunately the only solution.
Why? And on what basis would people sue the state/county? If it's public land, shouldn't people simply be allowed to swim at their own risk? And do I understand correctly that paddleboarding is allowed? Because that really makes no sense.
People have drowned. Lawsuits have extracted millions of dollars. That's the best explanation I can offer.
Yes, paddleboards are allowed. Kayaks too. No power boats. Don't ask, I don't have the answers.
I can tell you I have seen people do truly stupid things on the lake. Like load-up a canoe with people and ice chests and go into the lake when they obviously have no clue what they are doing. We've been kayaking this lake for 25 years. I wear a vest every time. And I am an excellent swimmer with open water experience. If you don't respect water, you die, it's that simple.
Once you get to the point where everyone is a victim despite their stupidity, the only option left is to restrict absolutely everyone to the extent possible. That's the way I see this may have evolved. I don't know.
