Everyman's Right

[Santa]

Here's something different.

We've discussed individual rights to private property till we're blue in the face. So where are we?
One of my most long standing complaints about the modern world are fences. I HATE fences. It's said good fences make good neighbors.
I think we've become a bunch of assholes because of fences.
This country has become the ugliest country on earth, with the possible exception of Izrael, because of the endless miles of fences.
It's like living in a fucking concentration camp. Everywhere I turn, there's a stinking fence. It offends the eyes and harms the psyche'.
A man can't even pull off the side of a country road and take a piss anymore.
Are we imprisoning ourselves under the pretense of security and privacy?
WTF happened to us?
When I was young, access to the country in the US was much more like the Finnish model below.
For those who live in the mountains out west or near wilderness area's it probably doesn't seem so bad, but here in the east it blows beyond measure.


http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=390532&lan=EN



Everyman's right

The traditional Finnish legal concept of everyman's right allows free right of access to the land and waterways, and the right to collect natural products such as wild berries and mushrooms, no matter who owns the land. These rights also generally apply to foreign citizens, with certain exceptions related to local boating, fishing and hunting rights.


Campsites and outdoors recreation areas are often
equipped with special campfire-sites. © Eira Kuikka


Everyman's right means that access to the land is free of charge, and does not require the landowner's permission. People taking advantage of these rights are nevertheless obliged not to cause any damage or disturbance. Everyman's right consists of a set of generally accepted traditions that have also been enshrined in various laws and regulations.

Within the EU, such rights are most widely applied in the Nordic Countries, where the right to roam and pick berries and mushrooms is an important part of local cultures. In other countries such rights vary considerably, and are typically much more limited - partly because these countries are more densely populated and have fewer forests, but also because of their different land-ownership traditions.
Everyman's right in brief

Everyone may:

walk, ski or cycle freely in the countryside, except in gardens, in the immediate vicinity of people’s homes, and in fields and plantations which could easily be damaged
stay or set up camp temporarily in the countryside, a reasonable distance from homes
pick wild berries, mushrooms and flowers, as long as they are not protected species
fish with a rod and line
row, sail or use a motorboat on waterways, with certain restrictions; swim or wash in inland waters and the sea
walk, ski and fish on frozen lakes, rivers and the sea

You may not:

disturb other people or damage property
disturb breeding birds, or their nests or young
disturb reindeer or game animals
cut down or damage living trees, or collect wood, moss or lichen on other people’s property
light open fires on other people’s property, except in an emergency
disturb the privacy of people’s homes, by camping too near them, or making too much noise, for example
leave litter
drive motor vehicles off road without the landowner’s permission
fish or hunt without the relevant permits

Everyman's right is working well

According to a study, landowners, hikers and authorities agree that everyman's right is working well. Everyman's right is considered extremely important in Finland and not many problems are related to its use. Retaining the right as it is is seen as important. The survey was conducted in October/November 2006 (for more information, see link on the right).

[govcheetos]

Sounds good and lovie dovie and I suspect it could work in low population areas like the western states and up in nordic country. However, these folks don't seem to enjoy roaming bands of miscreants like some other areas do.

[Ponce]

Well, then please forgive me if I have a double fence on my property and in what is to come I'll have a hell of a lot more than just a double fence......a fence to me is a simple way to tell everyone to stay the hell away form me and also to give me more time to do something if they decided to come in anyway.

First post of the day.......good morning to one and all.

V

[palani]

Fences hold livestock. Otherwise they tend to stray and generally find a way to get in front of speeding cars where they cause death and destruction (and liability).

[Dogman]

Yesterday we had a bull take a stroll downtown when he took a dislike to a fence. And today the cops are on the hunt for a bunch of goats that are playing hide and seek with them.

Happens here at least once a week or more here horses, cows, goats and the occasional emu along with other critters take a walk on the wild side.

Here fences are a good thing!

[osoab]

What about hedge rows?

[Santa]

We've always had livestock, be we haven't always had SO MANY FENCES.
But there's no need to be de-fencive. I'm not asking anyone to sign a petition for the outlawing of all fences. ;D

4474

In the mean time, the whole country is becoming one gigantic fema work camp surrounded by fences. And with drones, who needs towers.

The US road system keeps all of us laborers on voluntary conveyor belts from which we can only get out of our vehicle at predetermined designated stops
on the way to and from our place of work.

All other space in between the designated locations is off limits.

We're so fucked.

[osoab]

So you don't mind a multitude of people traipsing your back yard looking for edibles?

[Libertytree]

Have wire cutters, will travel :)

[Santa]

So you don't mind a multitude of people traipsing your back yard looking for edibles?

It's funny... about the only countryside left around here that doesn't have fences are the farm groves where quantities of food are grown.

And I don't see multitudes of people rushing in to steal the fruit.

[Agrippa]

Ultimately what it means to “own” a piece of land is a human invention. If the consensus is that ownership gives one the sole right of commercial exploitation, but doesn't give one the right to exclude others from traversing the land: then so it is.


When I was young I lived in a rural area that operated, unofficially, in the “Everyman's right” way. We walked where we would, but tried to stay out of sight of houses. The few fences around were there to contain livestock, not to keep people out: and we didn't stay out, unless there was a bull guarding the field.


Now I live in a different area, which, while just as rural, operates on a different understanding of property rights. Here one is expected to obtain explicit permission from a property owner before setting foot on their land. Comparatively, it does feel like being in a prison.


While this change has, in a trivial fashion, expanded the rights of property owners; in reality the property owners of my youth had far more rights. They did whatever they wanted with their land without thinking twice about it. Where I live now a property owner would be afraid to stick a shovel into the dirt without getting permission from their masters in writing beforehand. And of course, the prohibition against trespass doesn't apply to their masters' agents....

[joboo]

People like privacy.

[Santa]

When I was young I lived in a rural area that operated, unofficially, in the “Everyman's right” way. We walked where we would, but tried to stay out of sight of houses. The few fences around were there to contain livestock, not to keep people out: and we didn't stay out, unless there was a bull guarding the field.


.

Exactly!

And those rural areas were about as far from any communist ideology as can be imagined.

The way things are currently set up pertaining to individual property rights is more akin to
animal husbandry than it is to human rights or common law.

Perhaps we're being conditioned(like dogs) to prefer to return back to our own private property cages inside the greater kennel.

[mick silver]

and have ammo will stop

[osoab]

Exactly!

And those rural areas were about as far from any communist ideology as can be imagined.

The way things are currently set up pertaining to individual property rights is more akin to
animal husbandry than it is to human rights or common law.

Perhaps we're being conditioned(like dogs) to prefer to return back to our own private property cages inside the greater kennel.

How so? Hasn't it been through the ages that kings owned the ground? They doled it out to their nobles as they saw fit. We peasants didn't have property. We were part of the property.

[mick silver]

right to pay taxes are the only rights i see we have now

[Horn]

When I was young, access to the country in the US was much more like the Finnish model below.

Many Europeans & Slavs make fun of the Finns in a demeaning fashion.

Its for this reason I find them (the finns) attractive.

[Agrippa]

I suspect that a lot of the change in attitude I've seen over my lifetime has its roots in lawsuits. When I was a kid, if I got hurt while wandering on a neighbors property (which happened more than once): no one even dreamed that the neighbor could or should be held liable. Now every trespass is a potential million-dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Dogman]

I suspect that a lot of the change in attitude I've seen over my lifetime has its roots in lawsuits. When I was a kid, if I got hurt while wandering on a neighbors property (which happened more than once): no one even dreamed that the neighbor could or should be held liable. Now every trespass is a potential million-dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.

Nailed it!

Law suits and property damage done by strangers on the land has got most landowners here to post you are not welcome signs.

[Horn]

The attitude is much different now, even those lands still owned by the people in U.S. have fences around them.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsbytes/2011/483xtra_esycc.html

[horseshoe3]

When I was young, people would come out and enjoy the land. We had no problem with that, we enjoyed meeting new people. Things have changed. Now people come out and cause trouble. But there is one thing we have discovered - the people who find the owner and ask permission, never cause trouble. We grant permission to anyone who asks first, but we chase off anyone who comes in without any respect for our property rights. It seems to work well that way.

[Dogman]

When I was young, people would come out and enjoy the land. We had no problem with that, we enjoyed meeting new people. Things have changed. Now people come out and cause trouble. But there is one thing we have discovered - the people who find the owner and ask permission, never cause trouble. We grant permission to anyone who asks first, but we chase off anyone who comes in without any respect for our property rights. It seems to work well that way.

That usually works here also!

Show some courtesy and ask first works very well with most large land owners here. (plus clean up any mess before you leave)

[woodman]

I see both sides of this. I am a land owner. Only about 15 acres, but it is mine to hold (limited) sway over and I like my privacy. I do see hunters on my land occasionally. I don't have a fit, usually they don't know just where they are. I don't want any stray fire coming my way though. If people were just more responsible, fences to keep them out would be rare. The only fence I have is to keep cattle in and it only around about 5 acres. I really wouldn't mind people hiking, it is just that people are nosy and you never know if they are there to rip-off or get you in trouble for some small infraction like popping a pheasant out of season. Some people thrive on tattling to get others in trouble. It is a strange mental condition that I never understood. One of my sisters was like this when I was growing up. I think it is a way of sucking up to daddy government. Most cops have this mentality.

So fences serve to insure that people who like their privacy are left the fuck alone. I understand this sentiment.


It really should be a free person's right to wander and explore at their will. The land has been chopped up like a side of beef in a butcher shop and sold off peice by peice, the fences are the wrapper to ensure tidyness and minimize exposure. They are an ugly blight upon a once pristine land that is becomeing increasingly a commodity of the rich and priveledged. The midwest is becoming more and more like the east where people are packed so close together that no body has any elbow room. And still we are bringing in immigrants from the third world who will have large families. I've seen it out east where the land is tied up with fences so you can't hike anywhere unless you pay your fee and go to a park. It sucks and is an insult to someone who grew up as a child wandering the fencerows and woods and feilds and pulling fish and crawdads out of cricks. This world has changed and I don't like it.

I think it is time for me to move further west or further north.

[Santa]

How so? Hasn't it been through the ages that kings owned the ground? They doled it out to their nobles as they saw fit. We peasants didn't have property. We were part of the property.

Nothing has really changed, except the peasants have been conned into believing they own property. The differences between Kingdoms, Church States or Nation States is probably
far less than most of us think.

But my intent wasn't actually to argue the validity of property ownership, it's more of the aesthetic quality of life thing for me.

Every year my country just gets nastier and uglier. I mean, if you really look at the chain link strip mall homogeneity along the road traveling back and forth to work, it's fucking disgusting. A cultural wasteland of parking lots and frustrations.

I really think a lot of the reason we aren't rising up and fighting to reclaim our country is because it looks and feels like a fucking post industrial reclamation dump.

[mamboni]

Agrippa's old rural homestead is close to how and where I live now. Granted not everyone can live on 10 acres as I do. And the average property is 10-20 acres. But there are almost no fences. There are some property barriers - but most of these are part of pens or other animal containments. People are very friendly here. But I wouldn't go walking onto a property whose owner I didn't know - don't want to get shot by accident! I remember growing up in Queens, NY circa 1960. Then it was rural transforming into suburban. Most the homes were owned by GIs and their families back from WWII and Korea. There were plots but no fences. And fences were frowned upon as anti-social and frankly, unneighborly. So I sympathize with Santa and agree completely. This is why I live where I do.

[Santa]

I see both sides of this. I am a land owner. Only about 15 acres, but it is mine to hold (limited) sway over and I like my privacy. I do see hunters on my land occasionally. I don't have a fit, usually they don't know just where they are. I don't want any stray fire coming my way though. If people were just more responsible, fences to keep them out would be rare. The only fence I have is to keep cattle in and it only around about 5 acres. I really wouldn't mind people hiking, it is just that people are nosy and you never know if they are there to rip-off or get you in trouble for some small infraction like popping a pheasant out of season. Some people thrive on tattling to get others in trouble. It is a strange mental condition that I never understood. One of my sisters was like this when I was growing up. I think it is a way of sucking up to daddy government. Most cops have this mentality.

So fences serve to insure that people who like their privacy are left the fuck alone. I understand this sentiment.


It really should be a free person's right to wander and explore at their will. The land has been chopped up like a side of beef in a butcher shop and sold off peice by peice, the fences are the wrapper to ensure tidyness and minimize exposure. They are an ugly blight upon a once pristine land that is becomeing increasingly a commodity of the rich and priveledged. The midwest is becoming more and more like the east where people are packed so close together that no body has any elbow room. And still we are bringing in immigrants from the third world who will have large families. I've seen it out east where the land is tied up with fences so you can't hike anywhere unless you pay your fee and go to a park. It sucks and is an insult to someone who grew up as a child wandering the fencerows and woods and feilds and pulling fish and crawdads out of cricks. This world has changed and I don't like it.

I think it is time for me to move further west or further north.

I live in Fl. and yeah it pretty much sucks here in the east. Even as late as the 70's, I used to just pull off the road with a girlfriend and go skinny dipping in crystal clear lakes. There were pull offs everywhere along the lakeshores. Cool little spots where no one knew or cared who owned the property.

Today? There are mostly Official State boat launches and sterile parks that close at dusk behind chain link fence gates.

I don't think people have changed so much. I think policies, regulations and State control measures have changed. Fucking Fences.
I happen to live on 7 acres myself, in a not very populated county. There really aren't "that" many more people here than there were back in the 70's, but access and egress
has diminished significantly. And I'm no different. I've got fencing too. But I don't like it. It's psychically damaging and this is what I'm most concerned about.

Insurance and litigation is a huge part of the problem too.

But even so, rural property divisions aren't really what's causing most of the psychic blight here. It's mostly the sub urban sprawl that makes me want to puke and even deep down sort of hope for a cataclysmic reset. You know... bring on the fucking death star or Gods wrath or whatever. Just so long as it takes out all the Multinational Big Box Franchises I have to pass every day.

[woodman]

I am traveling constantly, going from job to job and as a necessity I must go to Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, Meijer. One thing I note is how much space is taken up by useless, unneeded parking lot lanes with curbs and islands that force you to travel in complex and unneccessary ways through the lots and to different businesses. It is not mainstreet anymore. I don't know what to call it but stupid will work. The parking lots are huge and way back from the roads. You must make your way like a herd animal through these proscribed lanes to get to your destination. It is bullshit.

[woodman]

As long as I'm complaining about fences and parking lanes, etc. Let me just vent my frustration about businesses that have two glass front doors and keep one of them locked. I go up and push my weight against a door that should, by my expectation, thrust open and I am brought to a sudden and rude halt by a locked door. This is bullshit too.

A little thread derailment but I had to get it off my chest.

[Santa]

As long as I'm complaining about fences and parking lanes, etc. Let me just vent my frustration about businesses that have two glass front doors and keep one of them locked. I go up and push my weight against a door that should, by my expectation, thrust open and I am brought to a sudden and rude halt by a locked door. This is bullshit too.

A little thread derailment but I had to get it off my chest.
No, no derailment at all. You're right on the mark.

So much of the "modern" work day world construct we all must negotiate in is a toxic dump of an environment that disgusts me.

Much of it makes Kafka's cold barren social cityscapes seem downright homey by comparison.

The gentrification that occurred during the 90's was almost entirely a facade, a boob job to cover up the general abandonment of whatever American culture we once may have had.

[zap]

I suspect that a lot of the change in attitude I've seen over my lifetime has its roots in lawsuits. When I was a kid, if I got hurt while wandering on a neighbors property (which happened more than once): no one even dreamed that the neighbor could or should be held liable. Now every trespass is a potential million-dollar lawsuit waiting to happen.


I inherited quite a bit of land... ( dirt poor I call it, land nobody wants) and it is all fenced, My FIL and late Husband did all the work, and from what I understand if somebody comes over the fence and shoots their -selves ( on my property in the foot) or get killed) I am liable for their stupid mistake, YEP they can sue my ass and/or my insurance, because of their ignorance. I try to keep everyone out of here. Remember that deer that somebody shot on my property and left it lay?

[palani]

from what I understand if somebody comes over the fence and shoots their -selves ( on my property in the foot) or get killed) I am liable for their stupid mistake, YEP they can sue my ass and/or my insurance, because of their ignorance.

A landowner owes three levels of duty.

To a trespasser you may not injure them ... no trap guns, bear traps, punji sticks dipped in excrement. You may order them off your property and call the sheriff. That is about all.

To a service person (newspaper delivery, milkman, etc) if you know of any defects that might cause injury you have to inform them.

To an invited guest you owe the highest duty. If you know of any defects as above you must find them and fix them.

Given the above the trespasser is your best friend. Rather than prohibiting trespassers you should welcome them with open arms and charge them a $5,000 per day (or any part of a day) land usage fee. At the same time give notice that service people and invited guests are by written permission (license) only. Cut down on your liability and enjoy your property more.

I have more problem with people coming up asking if they can hunt (or motorcycle, or snowmobile, etc). For by asking and my agreeing then I have voluntarily agreed to their status as an invited guest. The best response: "You may hunt but I will hold you to the same standards as any other trespasser." Raises some eyebrows but gets me out of a bunch of liability.